Planning for Schools Development Plan Document SD8A Consultation Statement

8th July 2015 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This statement has been prepared in accordance with Regulation 22(1) (c) of the Town and Country Planning (Local development) () Regulations 2012 (‘the Regulations’). It details the publication procedures undertaken by the Council for the Planning for Schools Development Plan Document (PfS DPD) in compliance with the Regulations. The statement seeks to show how the local planning authority has prepared the plan in accordance with Regulation 18 and has dealt with any representations received relating to a local plan in accordance with Regulation 20.

1.2 For clarity, this statement has been divided into two sections as follows • Section two deals with representations received at the Initial and Options stage. It sets out which bodies and persons were invited to make representations, details of the consultation and a brief analysis of the representations received. The summary of the main issues and how those issues were addressed is published in the standalone report titled EB4 ‘ Planning for Schools DPD, Issues and Options, Representations Report’ (February 2015). • Section three deals with representations received at the Publication stage. It details the publication procedures undertaken by the Council, the number of representations received and a summary of the main issues raised in the representations.

1.3 This consultation statement is also supplemented by a full summary (Part B – in an excel spreadsheet sheet form) of any Regulation 20 representations received together with the detailed responses and recommendations of the Council. A summary of the spreadsheet will also be provided in the appendices – Appendix D.

Overview of Consultation Process 1.4 The PfS DPD will form part of the Council’s suite of documents known as the Local Plan. This particular DPD will help to clearly establish the Council’s approach to providing Primary and Secondary school places for the borough’s population and will help to identify sites which may be suitable for providing them whether by extension or new sites.

1.5 The DPD has been published for statutory public consultation at the Issues and Options stage (including a Call for sites) and at the Publication stage. All stages of the DPD have been prepared in accordance with the Council’s adopted Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and the Regulations.

1.6 The proposed allocations comprise sites identified through the evidence base including • ED14 – Planning for Schools DPD Evidence Note, Municpal Projects (Oct 2013) • ED15 – Council Secondary School Site Search, GVA (Oct 2013) • ED16 – Primary School Site Search Selection Report, EC Harris (Dec 2010)

Page | 2

It also included a wider review of sites from various sources including former UDP sites, sites identified in the Council’s (then) emerging Development Sites DPD and Property Strategy.

1.7 In accordance with Regulation 18, the Council undertook a public consultation on the PfS DPD, Issues and Options from October – December 2013. The Issues and Options document outlined Ealing Borough’s context in terms of existing school provision and the future demand for school places. It also provided a long list of sites which would have been potentially suitable for the delivery of extensions to and/or new build of primary or secondary schools.

1.8 The consultation ran for 6 weeks and businesses, community/voluntary groups, residents and statutory organisations were invited to make representations. The consultation also included a call for sites, which invited individuals and organisations to put forward potential sites for schools for the Council to consider for inclusion in the PfS DPD. A total of 40 representations were received from 29 respondents. 11 new sites were suggested and 3 suggestions made for extensions on sites included in the Council’s long list.

1.9 All sites within the Issues and Options document and those new sites put forward during consultation were assessed against the site short listing criteria and the Sustainability Appraisal of each site. A summary of the methodology and justifications are outlined in ED2 ‘Municipal Projects Planning for Schools DPD – Evidence Note Phase 2’ (November 2014) and the spreadsheet appended to this document.

1.10 In accordance with Regulation 18, the Council undertook formal consultation on the PfS, Publication Version, DPD from February – April 2015. The consultation ran for 6 weeks and businesses, community/voluntary groups, residents and statutory organisations were invited to make representations. A total of 326 representations were received from 124 respondents.

1.11 During both consultations, there was opportunity to comment on the Sustainability Appraisal.

Page | 3

2 ISSUE AND OPTIONS CONSULTATION

The consultation arrangements

2.1 The consultation period took place from 25th October to 9th December 2013.

2.2 The Council consulted with organisations, bodies and groups identified in Appendix A. These consultees included specific consultation bodies and other statutory bodies, local residents groups, businesses and individual residents. The Council also consulted with site owners and educational institutions.

2.3 The DPD and background and supporting documents were published on the Council’s website during this period alongside the consultation response forms (Appendix B-2) and advice on where and when the DPD was available for inspection. Copies were deposited for inspection at each of the borough’s libraries and at the Council office (Perceval House).

2.4 An e-bulletin was sent to all individuals/organisations recorded on the Council’s consultation database and letters were sent to site owners and educational institutions (Appendix B-4)

2.5 A public notice (Appendix B-3) advertising the consultation was published in the local ‘Ealing Gazette’ newspaper at the commencement of the consultation period.

2.6 All of the above was done in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SD12).

The response

Analysis

2.7 For the Issues and Options consultation, 40 representations were submitted by 29 individuals and organisations (Appendix B-1 lists the respondents). The respondents included

• 8 Educational Institutions • 7 Community groups • 5 Statutory bodies • 5 local residents • 4 Site owners

Page | 4

2.8 The table below provides a breakdown of representations by respondent type

Respondent Type No of representations Community groups 15 Educational Institutions 9 Site owners 6 Statutory bodies 5 local residents 5

2.9 Of the 40 representations, over a third were from community groups

Summary of the main issues

2.10 For a detailed breakdown of the main issues raised by the representations and the council responses, please see EB4 ‘Planning for Schools DPD Issue and Options Representation report’ (February 2015).

Call for Sites

2.11 For the Call for Sites consultation, 6 representations were submitted by individuals and organisations (Appendix B-1 lists the respondents). The respondents included 2 local residents, 3 Educational institutions and 1 person from Ealing Council.

2.12 11 new sites were suggested and 3 suggestions were made for extensions to sites already included in the Council’s long list.

• 58, 60, 62 Hanger Lane and 81, 83, 85 Madeley Road • The Studios in Cambridge Road, (known as Marall Smith Film & Video Productions) • Former Barclays Sports Ground, Park View Rd [ was already in Council’s long list] • 27 The Vale • 2 Bollo Lane, Chiswick • Shepherds Bush Cricket Ground • Land r/o Twyford School • Allotments Northfield Avenue east side • Warren Farm • The Park Club, East Acton Lane • Acton Job Centre

Extensions to long listed sites:

• S-GNP2 Land in front of High School - potential to include 309 Rd and petrol station to the west of 309? • S-HAN3 Wickes - site could be extended to include sales/garage to south-east? • S-HAN2 Trumpers Way - include industrial premises to South West

Page | 5

2.13 Since the long-list of sites was published (at Issues and Options stage). Some additional sites have been included for consideration where the opportunity has arisen more recently and /or it is considered they have potential for use either as a new school or extension to existing school. Any sites added for consideration have been subject to the same short listing criteria and sustainability appraisal as the previously identified sites.

2.14 The justifications for including/shortlisting and/or excluding sites are set out in the spreadsheet appended to the ‘Municipal Projects Planning for Schools DPD – Evidence Note Phase 2’ (November 2014).

Page | 6

3 PUBLICATION STAGE CONSULTATION

The consultation arrangements

3.1 The consultation period took place from 20th February to 3rd April 2015. Due to ongoing discussions with statutory bodies the Council accepted late representation s from them. In the interest of fairness, representations received from other parties at this late stage have also been accepted.

3.2 The Council consulted with organisations, bodies and groups identified in Appendix A. These consultees included specific consultation bodies and other statutory bodies, local residents groups, businesses and individual residents. The Council also consulted with site owners and educational institutions.

3.3 The DPD and background and supporting documents were published on the Council’s website during this period alongside the consultation response form (Appendix C-2) and advice on where and when the DPD was available for inspection. Copies were deposited for inspection at each of the borough’s libraries and at the Council office (Perceval House).

3.4 An e-Bulletin was sent to all individuals/organisations recorded on the Council’s consultation database and letters were sent to site owners and educational institutions (Appendix C-4).

3.5 A public notice (Appendix C-3) advertising the consultation was published in the local ‘Ealing Gazette’ newspaper at the commencement of the consultation period.

3.6 All of the above was done in accordance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SD12).

The response

Analysis

3.7 For the Publication stage, 326 representations were submitted by 124 individuals and organisations (Appendix C-1 lists the respondents). The respondents included

• 93 Local Residents • 13 Community groups • 9 Statutory bodies • 5 Educational institutions • 2 Site owners • 1 council • 1 other

Page | 7

3.8 Three quarters of the representations were sent in by local residents

3.9 Number of representations by respondent type

3.10 A table to show the number of reps made on each site by respondent type

Community Local Education Statutory Site Site Description Council Other group resident Institution body owner Acton Park S-ACT2 2 11 depot Land rear of S-ACT7 Twyford 1 3 2 13 1 High School Acton S-ACT8 1 3 college Former Barclays S-EAL4 29 109 11 13 7 1 sports ground Former King S-EAL6 Fahad 1 1 2 Land adjacent to S-GNP2 1 1 Eversheds S-HAN1 Sports 1 4 1 12 Ground 42 Lower S-HAN4 Boston 1 1 Road

Page | 8

The majority of representations received related to S-EAL4, the former Barclays Sports ground site. The local residents provided the largest portion of these representations.

3.11 Summary of the main issues

Site Issue Response Suggested change

EVIDENCE BASE

Queries regarding The need for school places is clearly New para 5.11 (a) demographic data and set out in the DPD and supporting introduces time-limited the methodology used documents. The Council are regularly de-designation from to establish the amount monitoring demographic data which has MOL if the MOL sites are and areas of need for changed over time, and through this not developed and additional school places DPD are seeking to be proactive in evidence indicates they identifying sites to meet the identified are no longer required. need in the right places and at the right time.

In response to the representation from the GLA, it is considered an earlier review of the DPD would be appropriate if demographic monitoring reveals that fewer school places are required. The suggested revised wording is supported by the GLA.

PROCESS

Site selection process The long and shortlisting methodology, No change queried criteria and justifications for excluding or shortlisting sites are clearly set out in paras 4.5 - 4.13 of the DPD and in the Municipal Projects DPD Evidence note Phase 2 report (included as EB2)

The site selection criteria have not been weighted although deliverability is key in ensuring sites are delivered in time to meet the identified need.

The GLA response confirms ‘The site selection criteria and its methodology as detailed in the document are considered robust’ and acknowledge that ‘the shortlisting process has also been informed by the outcome of the Sustainability Appraisal of the sites.’

Page | 9

Site Issue Response Suggested change Consultation process This DPD seeks to establish the No change has been inadequate principle of education use on various sites and includes proposed policies to help meet the identified need. Consultation on the DPD has been undertaken in accordance with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Any subsequent planning application in relation to detailed proposals on any of the sites would be subject to a subsequent and separate planning application process, as outlined in para 4.23 and at Appendix 1 beneath each site map. This planning application process would be subject to its own consultation and detailed assessment.

SITE ALLOCATION, USE AND BOUNDARIES

The use of Metropolitan The need for school places is clearly Proposed revised Open Land (MOL) for set out in the DPD and supporting wording to Policy 1, education use documents. It is acknowledged that a additional text at para balance has to be struck between 4.22 and new para providing for the identified need in the 5.11(a). borough and protection of MOL. As such, the proposed policy wording has been strengthened to minimise the extent of any MOL de-designated, clarify that uses other than education use would not be in conformity with the London Plan and review the de- designation of sites from MOL if they are not delivered as education use within the plan period.

In order to meet the identified need, para 4.18 confirms the Council's preference to build on sites which are policy compliant and also justifies inclusion of some MOL sites in the shortlist. The proposed text changes seek to ensure least harm to the openness of MOL sites.

The suggested revised wording to Policy 1 and supporting text is supported by the GLA.

Page | 10

Site Issue Response Suggested change All sites Site allocation The solid red line on Appendix 1 Additional text suggested and boundaries and the mapping confirms the boundary of the at start of Appendix 1 mapping extent and method of site allocation on all sites. A dashed red mapping for clarification. at Appx 1 MOL de-designation line (where applicable) represents the (within the boundary of area within the red line boundary in relevant sites) which a school could appropriately be sited - the final siting of which would be determined through a subsequent planning application. Reference is made to BB103 guidance to establish floorspace for education use, and on MOL sites the final footprint and access of any approved planning application will determine the precise area of land to be de-designated from MOL.

Other sporting facilities or pitches which may be provided as part of a school development but are consistent with the MOL designation may be provided outside of the dashed red line/area designated for the school.

The need to ensure The need to ensure increased No change increased availability of availability of indoor and outdoor sports indoor and outdoor facilities on school sites is supported, sports facilities on and is reflected in Para 2.4 of the DPD school sites which cites London Plan Policy 3.18, encouraging development proposals which 'maximise the extended or multiple use of educational facilities for community and recreational use' on school premises.

In terms of response from Sport England, the Planning for Schools DPD will not compromise the Playing Pitch Strategy; through allocating sites for schools there is likely to be a net gain in pitch provision borough-wide, as the schools will provide pitches on land currently in private ownership which will be brought into wider community/public use.

Page | 11

Site Issue Response Suggested change S-EAL4 Objections to inclusion Other than in principle objections to the Additional text at para of site S-EAL4 use of MOL and covenant issue (both 4.23 to re-confirm the addressed elsewhere in this summary distinction between the table) concerns relate primarily to the purpose and outcome of potential impacts arising from the DPD process (which development on the site. This DPD seeks to allocate sites seeks to allocate sites for education and promote policies to use. Para 4.23 confirms that separate support the required and subsequent planning applications education provision), and would be required on any of the sites, the subsequent planning and these would be subject to their own application process consultation and detailed assessment. including detailed Supporting documents and studies assessment of would also be required to be submitted proposals. with planning applications. If a proposal is considered acceptable, mitigation of potential impacts could be appropriately secured, if required, through the detailed design of the scheme, planning conditions and/ or legal agreements.

S-EAL4 Support for inclusion of Extent of support noted in terms of No change site S-EAL4 identified need and location.

Table 4.1 Query site allocations Table 4.1 includes details of the type of No change and Sites for 0 Forms of Entry provision and potential FE for each site. S-HAN4 (FE) S-HAN1 Site S-HAN4 (0FE) would not deliver an and additional FE, but the use of the site S-ACT7 would enable re-configuration and extension to the existing adjacent primary school to accommodate a bulge class.

Site S-HAN1 (0FE) is allocated as a temporary contingency site in the event site S-EAL6 is not delivered in time to meet the identified need.

Site S-ACT7 is allocated as a contingency site for the initial forms of entry in the event a permanent site cannot be delivered in time to meet the identified need.

Para 4.17 confirms this is required to provide some of the required flexibility and to avoid over-provision of permanent facilities /school places in the longer-term.

Page | 12

Site Issue Response Suggested change

IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

Detailed development This DPD seeks to establish the New para 2.12 proposals for each site principle of education use on various suggested to include are yet to be confirmed; sites. DPD para 4.23 already confirms reference to London concern re: potential that 'each new extension or school Plan and Local Plan impacts would still require a planning application documents against and would be considered on its own which subsequent merits in terms of design and other planning applications will impacts'. be assessed. Historic England document Aspects of detailed design and impact references also added to against which subsequent planning assist users of the DPD applications will be assessed are to manage change provided in the Council’s Local Plan sensitively. documents, including the London Plan and Development Management documents. Detailed design should include consideration of the historic environment and reference should also be made to Historic England guidance’

Historic England support the suggested additional wording.

Potential transport Further detailed analysis of transport Additional suggested impacts arising from implications would be assessed as part wording at para 4.23 to development proposals of any subsequent planning application confirm the range of on any of the identified sites once the transport studies that detailed proposals are known. DPD would be required. para 4.23 already confirms that 'each new extension or school would still require a planning application and would be considered on its own merits in terms of design and other impacts'. Safe and convenient access and maximising travel by non-car modes would be sought in accordance with adopted Local Plan policies and requirements, including securing new infrastructure as part of development proposals or through Legal Agreements to improve accessibility and safety as required.

TfL welcome the additional suggested wording.

Page | 13

Site Issue Response Suggested change

OTHER

S-EAL4 Covenant issues Whilst covenants may potentially impact No change and upon delivery there is no certainty at S-ACT7 this point that they would prevent delivery of education use on either site.

Page | 14

APPENDICES

Appendix A – List of consultees

Specific Consultees • Highways Agency • Sport England • Amec on behalf of • Historic England • Sport England - London National Grid • Home Office Region • Anglian Water • Hounslow Council • SWALEC • Atlantic Electric and • London Borough of • SWEB Energy Limited Gas Hammersmith & Fulham • Telecom Plus PLC • BAA Aerodrome • London Borough of • Thames Water Safeguarding Havering • Thames Water Property • Brent Council • London Borough of Services • British Gas • Thames Water Utilities • British Gas Properties • London Councils Ltd • British Waterways • London Energy Plc • The • British Waterways • London Fire & Archaeological Advisory London Emergency Planning Service (GLAAS) • BT Group plc Authority • The Theatres Trust • Canal and River Trust • London Fire and • Three Valleys Water • Countrywide Farmers Emergency Planning • T-Mobile (UK) Limited Plc Authority • Transport for London • Croydon Council • London Fire and • Transport for London, • Department for Culture, Emergency Planning West London Tram Media and Sport Authority (agents Dron (TFL) • Department for & Wright) • Virgin HomeEnergy Environment, Food and • London Waterways - Limited Rural Affairs Canal and River Trust • Vodafone Group Plc • Department for • Metropolitan Police • Wandsworth Council Transport Authority • West London Health • Department of • National Grid Estates Education and Skills • Natural England • West London Waste • Department of Health • Network Rail Authority • Department of Trade • NHS and Industry • NHS London Healthy General Consultees • Director of Asset Urban Development • A & D Homes Ltd Management Unit • A2Dominion Group • Ealing Primary Care • NHS Property Services • Action Acton Trust Ltd • Actionvale Community • Ecotricity • North West London Centre • Education Funding Strategic Health • Acton Alliance Agency (EFA) Authority • Acton Community • • Environment Agency Npower Forum • • Equality and Human O2 (cellnet) • Acton Green & Bedford Rights Commission • Opus Energy Limited Park Conservation Area • Forestry Commission • Planning Policy, Panel • Freight Transport Borough of Lewisham • Acton Green Residents Association • Powergen Association • Good Energy Limited • Renewable UK • Acton History Group • Greater London • Richmond upon • Acton Town Residents Authority (GLA) Thames Council Association • Harrow Council • Scottish Gas • Advanced Property • Health and Safety • Scottish Hydro Electric Management Executive (HSE) • ScottishPower • Afghan Academy • Airport • Seeboard Energy • Age UK Limited Limited • Alder King • Ltd • Southern Electric • Alliance Planning

Page | 15

• Alzheimers Concern • Central & Cecil Housing • Councillor Gregory Ealing Care & Support Stafford • Ancient Monuments • Central Ealing • Councillor Gurmit Kaur Society Residents' Association Mann • Apna Ghar Housing • CgMs Consulting • Councillor H Rose Association Ltd • Charles Russell LLP • Councillor Harbhajan • Armenian Hayashen • Choicehome Property Kaur-Dheer • Arup Partnership Management • Councillor Hitesh Tailor • Arya Samaj London • Chris Thomas Ltd • Councillor I Potts • Ascott Avenue • Churchfield Community • Councillor Ian Proud Residents Association Association • Councillor Isobel Grant • Ashra-Asian Carers • Churchill Hui • Councillor J Anderson Project • Cissbury Consulting • Councillor J Cowing • Asian Family • City & Provincial • Councillor J Gallagher Counselling Services Properties Plc • Councillor J Popham • Asian Parents Carers • Cluttons • Councillor J Stacey Association • Colne Valley Rural • Councillor Jasbir Anand • ASRA Housing Development Forum • Councillor Joanna Association • Council For British Camadoo • Austin Mackie Archaeology • Councillor Joanne Associates Ltd • Councillor A Young Dabrowska • Avenue Road/Villiers • Councillor Abdullah • Councillor Jon Ball Road Residents Gulaid • Councillor Josh Blacker Association • Councillor Alexander • Councillor Joy • Barker Parry Town Stafford Morrissey Planning Ltd • Councillor Allot • Councillor Julian Bell • Barton Willmore • Councillor Andrew • Councillor Kamaljit • Bedford Park Society Steed Dhindsa • Bell Cornwell LLP • Councillor Anthony Kelly • Councillor Kamaljit Kaur • Bellway Homes • Councillor Aysha Raza Nagpal • Birkbeck Residents • Councillor B Mahfouz • Councillor Karam Association • Councillor B Reeves Mohan • Birkdale Area Residents • Councillor Benjamin • Councillor Kate Association Dennehy Crawford • Biscoe Craig Hall • Councillor Binda Rai • Councillor Kieron Gavan • Boston Manor • Councillor C Costello • Councillor Lauren Wall Residents Association • Councillor Charan • Councillor Lynne Murray • Boyer Planning Ltd Sharma • Councillor M Reen • BREEAM • Councillor Chris • Councillor Mik Sabiers • Brent River & Canal Summers • Councillor Mohammad Society • Councillor Ciaran Aslam • Brentham Society McCartan • Councillor Mohammed • British Geological • Councillor D Pagan Kausar Survey • Councillor D Scott • Councillor Mohinder • Brookside Consulting • Councillor Daniel Kaur Midha • Burland TM Ltd Crawford • Councillor Munir Ahmed • Buro Happold Ltd • Councillor David • Councillor Natasha • Caldecotte Consultants Millican Ahmed-Shaikh • Campaign for Real Ale • Councillor David • Councillor Nigel Bakhai Limited Rodgers • Councillor Nigel Sumner • Campaign to Protect • Councillor Dee Martin • Councillor Patricia Rural England (CPRE) • Councillor E Harris Walker • Capita Symonds • Councillor Edward • Councillor Patrick • Caribbean Environment Rennie Cogan Watch • Councillor Gareth Shaw • Councillor Paul Conlon • Catalyst Housing Ltd • Councillor Gary Busuttil • Councillor Penny Jones • CBRE • Councillor Gary • Councillor Peter Mason Malcolm

Page | 16

• Councillor Rajinder • David Wilson Homes • East Acton Residents Mann Ltd Association • Councillor Ranjit Dheer • Defence Estates • ECVS • Councillor Ray Wall Operations South • El-Djazir • Councillor Rosamund • Deloitte LLP • European Urban Reece • Denton Wilde Sapte Architecture • Councillor S Ahmed • Derek Horne & • Fairview Homes PLC • Councillor S Singh Kang Associates • Family Mosaic • Councillor Sanjai Kohli • Development Securities • Fields in Trust • Councillor Sarfraz Khan Plc • Firstplan • Councillor Seema • Dialogue • Forge Cottages Kumar • Diocesan Board of Residents Association • Councillor Shital Manro Finance • Foxtons Estate Agents • Councillor Simon • DMH Stallard • Frendcastle Woodroofe • Dormers Wells • Friends of Haven Green • Councillor Sitarah Residents Association (FoHG) Anjum • DP9 • Friends of the Litten • Councillor Steve Hynes • DPDS Consulting Group • Friends, Families and • Councillor Surinder • Drivers Jonas Deloitte Traveller and Traveller Varma • DTZ Law Reform Project • Councillor Swaran • Durham Road • Frogmore Property Padda Residents Association Company • Councillor Tariq • • Fusion Online Ltd Mahmood • Ealing and Hanwell • Gareth Daniel • Councillor Tej Bagha Scout District Associates • Councillor Tejinder • Ealing Arts • Gerald Eve LLP Dhami • Ealing Arts Centre • GL Hearn Limited • Councillor Theresa • Ealing Arts Council • Golden Opportunity Byrne • Ealing Centre for Youth Association • Councillor Theresa Independent Living • Goldsmith Area Mullins • Ealing Civic Society Residents Association • Councillor Tim Murtagh • Ealing Common • Golflinks Residents • Councillor W Brooks Conservation Area Association • Councillor Wendy Panel • Great Western Trains Langan • Ealing Common Society Company Limited • Councillor Y Johnson • Ealing Community • Greenford Community • Councillor Yoel Gordon Network Centre • Councillor Z Abbas- • Ealing Cricket Ground • Greenford Gospel Noori Conservation Area Church • Cranmer District Panel • Greenford Green & Residents Association • Ealing Cycling District Residents • Creffield Area Residents Campaign Association Association (CARA) • Ealing Falcons • Grove Avenue • Crest Nicholson Badminton Club Residents Association Developments Ltd • Ealing Fields Residents • GSK • Crime Prevention Association • GVA Design Advisor • Ealing Friends of the • Hanger Hill Estate • Crispins Wine Bar Earth Residents Association • Cuckoo Estate • Ealing Liberal • Hanwell & Canals Residents Association Synagogue (West) Conservation • Cumberland Park • Ealing Somali Area Panel Residents Association Community Welfare • Hanwell Car Centre • Curl La Tourelle • Ealing Somali Welfare • Hanwell Community Architects • Ealing Transition Centre • Cushman & Wakefield • Ealing Wildlife Network • Hanwell Preservation • D.S Bhasin • Ealing, Hammersmith Society • Dalton Warner Davis and West London • Hanwell Steering Group LLP College

Page | 17

• Hanwell Thurmon • Leonard Tridgell Advisers to the Civil Badminton Club Associates Estate) • Harper Planning • Levvel Ltd • Old Oak Common • Harrow Estates Plc • Lewis Trust Group Conservation Area • Hartswood Property • Linden Homes Chiltern Panel Management Ltd • Live Dubai Ltd • Oldfields Circus Traders • Havelock Estate • London Anglican • Park View Residents Residents Association • London Diocesan Association • Hayes Community House • Parkridge Holdings Forum • London First • Parsons Brinckerhoff • Heaton Planning • London Motorcycle • Peacock & Smith • Heynes Planning Museum & Ravenor • Pegasus Group Ltd • Hindu Youth Farm Community • Perivale Residents Organisation Association Society • Home Builders • London Planning • Permission Homes Federation Practice North London • Horn of Africa Advice • Look Ahead Housing • Persimmon Homes Centre and Care Ltd Thames Valley • Housing For Women • Lynne Evans Planning • Peter Pendleton & • Howard J Green FRICS • Maddox & Assocaites Associates Chartered Surveyor Ltd • Pinsent Masons • Howard Sharp and • Manhattan Lofts • Pitshanger Community Partners Corporation Association • Hunters Solicitors • Manor Residents • PJ Planning • Hynes Optometrists Association • Planning Perspectives • Iceni Projects • Mason & Partners LLP • Indigo Planning Ltd Commercial Property • Planning Potential • Inland Homes Consultants and • Planware Ltd • Institute of Sikh Studies • Mavenplan • Polish Community • Island Triangle • Mayfair Investments Centre Resident's Association • Medway Parade • PP Services Ltd in North Acton. Traders and Resident's • Questors • J D Asset Management Association • R.G Elms & Son Ltd Plc • Metropolis PD Ltd • Rail Freight Group • Japan Services • Metropolis Planning and • Ransome & Company • Jay Ashall Associates Design • Rapleys LLP • Jehovah's Witnesses • Middlesex Property • Ravenocean Ltd • JIG UK Ltd Management Ltd • Ravenor Park Residents • Jinah School of Urdu • Milap Day Centre Association • John Rowan & Partners • Mono Consultants Ltd • Red and White Design • Jones Lang LaSalle • Montagu Evans • Rex International Ltd/ • Kevin Scott Consultancy • Muslim College Pension Fund • Khudamil Ahmadiyya • Nathaniel Lichfield and • Robert Brett & Sons Ltd Association Partners (NLP) • Royal Bank of Scotland • Kings Fund • Neighbours Paper • Royal Mail Group Ltd • Kingsdown Residents • Network Housing Group • RPS Planning Association • North & South • RSG • Kirkwells Residents Association • Sainsbury's • Knight Frank • North Greenford Supermarkets Limited • Lamborn Close Residents Association / • Saloria Drawing Residents Association Halsbury Action Group Services • Landmark Information • Northfields Independent • SARAG Group • Village • Save Ealing's Open • Legal & General Community Centre Space Assurance Society Ltd • Northolt Village Forum • Save Trees In c/o Burnett Planning & • Office of Government Gunnersbury Development Commerce (Property • Savills • Scope

Page | 18

• Scott Brownrigg • The Brentham Club • University of Leeds • Scott Planning • The Carphone • URPS Associates Ltd Warehouse plc • Vikas Intercontinental • Segro • The Charity of William Developers • Selborne Society Hobbayne • Vincent and Gorbing • Shaa Road Residents • The Covenant • W Morrison Association Movement Ealing Supermarkets PLC • Sharan Properties Ltd • The Ealing Club • Walpole Residents • Shepherds Bush • The Garden History Association Housing Group Society • Walpole Residents • SHLAP (Stop Horn lane • The Georgian Group Association & Ealing Pollution) • The Grange Residents Green Conservation • Smith Jenkins Limited Association Panel • Society for the • The Grove Residents • Warden Housing Protection of Ancient Assoviation Association Buildings • The Lawn Tennis • Warwick Road • Society of Afghan Association Residents Association Residents • The Lawns Residents • Wasps FC amateur club • Somali Community Association • Wendover Court Association - Southall • The London Gypsy and Residents Association • Sorbon Management Traveller Unit • Wesley Estate Ltd • The Mill Residents Association • Southall Black Sisters • The National Federation • West Acton Residents • Southall Church of God of Gypsy Liaison Group Association (WARA) • Southall Community • The Open Spaces • West Ealing Neighbours Alliance Society • West Indian Saturday • Southall Day Centre Ltd • The Park Community School • Southall Local History Group • West London Alliance Society • The Twentieth Century • West London Business • Southall Merchants Society • West London Tamil Association • The UNITE group plc School • Southall Rights • The Victorian Society • West London YMCA • Speer Dade Planning • Thomas Wrenn Homes • West Twyford Residents Consultants Ltd Association • SQW • Tibetan Community • Westfield Property • SSA Planning Limited • Toplocks Residents Consultants • St Alban's Community Association • Westlon Housing Association • Town and Country Association • St Benedict's School Planning Association • Westminster Interfaith • St Catherines Court • Townhouse • Westway Housing (Chiswick) Ltd Developments Ltd Association • St Stephens Residents • TR Suterwalla & Sons • Wildberry Nature Association Ltd Reserve Community • St. James's Investments • Tramore Properties Group • St. Modwen Properties Limited • William Hardman Plc • Traveller Law Reform Associates • Stewart Ross Coalition • WLH Estates Associates • Triangle Group • Womens Development • Strutt and Parker • Trimmer CS Agency • Taurus Developments • Turley Associates • Womens Institute Limited • Turnberry Planning • Womens Pioneer • Terence O' Rourke • Twyford Ave Sport Grnd Housing Ltd • Tetlow King Planning Residents Association • Thames Honda Ltd • United Anglo Caribbean Local Residents • Thames Valley Housing Society • A Edwards • The Barton Willmore • United Anglo-Caribbean • A Fraser Planning Partnership Society • A Laver • The Boathouse • United Development Ltd • C Pitt

Page | 19

• Adrian March • D Haynes • Ian Wootton • Alan Murray • David Averre • Irving Jones • Alan Taylor • David Blackmore • J Anselll • Alison Martin • David Blackwell • J Ashley • Allison Franklin • David Brammer • J Humphreys • Amanda Christine • David Scott • J Matthews • Amanda Hodder • David Strachan • J Trimmer • Andrew Brennan • David Thaddeus • James Kelly • Andrew Caramba-Coker • David Zerdin • Jamie Powell • Andrew Jones • Deborah Sheppard • Jane Greenberg • Andrew Russell • Dennis Briscoe • Jane Judge • Andy Pedley • Derek Pratt • Jane Shirley • Andy Turner • Diane Lee • Janet Sacks • Angela Hailstone • Diane Jacobs • Janet Smith • Anil Anandan • Diane Murray • Jay Dasani • Anna Whitty • Dominic Jury • Jeremy Butler • Anne Boundford • Donal McGovern • Jeremy Goates • Anthony Elley • Doreen James • Jeremy Thorpe-Woods • Avtar Uppal • Doris Ratnam • Jessica Rose • Ayesha Sengupta • Dorris Edwards • Jill Williams • B Collins • E Cwirko-Godycka • Jimmy Carroll • Balbir Aujla • E D Stubner • Jocelyn Ridley • Belinda Joyce • E. F Osborne • John Gavin • Ben Owen • Eilis Devendra • John Gwynne • Beryl Pankhurst • Eleanor Brewer • John Blackmore • Beti Allocco • Elizabeth Stonor • John Harrison • Bill Wolmoth • Emma Price • John Hazlehurst • BKP Grabowski • Eric Saward • John Koski • Bob Reid • Evelin Matley • John Krol • Bob Roscow • Evelyn Gloyn • John Powell • Brian Cheetham • F Freedman • John Rundell • Brian Grant • Farah Bhatti • John Sweetman • C A Pearce • Faris Manshi • John Templeton • C Trimmer • Fiona Grabowski • John Winslow • Camilla Marriot • Fiona Sutcliffe • John Wright • Carl Cullingford • Fiona Thorn • John Zylinski • Carol Woolner • Francesco Fruzza • Johnny Rizq • Caroline Greenwood • Franklyn Nevard • Jon Allen • Caroline Tahourdin • G Howells • Jonathan Mead • Carolyn Brown • G. D. Peach • Jonathan Norris • Catherine Inger • G. H Walters • Judith Dove • Catriona Lindsay • Garabed Sahakian • Judith Fielding • Celia Roberts • Gavin Heighton • Judith Paris • Charles Garland • George Butlin • Julian Payne • Charlotte Bubb • George Murphy • Julie Kaiser • Chistine Lewis • Gerald McGregor • K Patterson • Chris Georghiou • Gill Meacock • Karen Maxwell • Chris Kenny • Gillian Burton • Karine Sarafian • Christopher Lowney • Gordon Chard • Kate Woolven • Clara Lowy • Grazyna Zaczynski • Kathleen & Tom • Clare Awdry • Greville Thomas McNerney • Clare Lucey • Guy Fiegehen • Kathy Brooks • Clive Narrainen • H.P. Wilkes • Kevin Newson • Colin Clark • Harry Aluarez • Kieran Rushe • Colin Mckeen • Harsev Bains • Kris Juraszek • Corin Vestey • Helen Atkinson • Kulwant Singh • D Dwyer • Helen Hirst • L Read

Page | 20

• L Woodcock • Nick Blong • S R Crosby • L.S.P Tymms • Nick Woolven • S Rowley • Laura Brennan • Nicola Kavanagh • S Turceninoff • Leslie Mostkow • Nicola Smith • Safi Ferrah • Linda Harakis • Nigal Timmins • Sandra Dunne • Linda Kouparis • Nigel Middlemiss • Sarah Eyre • Lindley Mortimer • Marke • Sarah Hamilton-Fairley • Loraine Dennis • Odile Ryan • Sarah Krzyanowska • Lorena Martin • P Agate • Sarah Maynard • Lorna Dodd • P Davies • Sarah Mitchell • Louise Murray • P Jones • Shao-Ying Ben-Nathan • Lynn Scivener • Paola Turner • Sharnbir Sangha • M Hartley • Pat McNair • Sheela Selvajothy • M Marcangelo • Patricia Baxendale • Sheila Diviney • M Roth • Patricia Bench • Sheila Walden • M Williamson • Paul Gibson • Shireen Alsalti • Maggie Maguire • Paul Smedley • Simon Tuke • Maggie Wilson • Paul Tierney • Siobhan Martin • Malcolm Ede • Paula Firstbrook • Stefan Krok- • Margaret Sherrin • Penny Newlands Paszkowski • Maria Martinez-Orantes • Pete Grist • Stella Dinenis • Marie Somerville • Peter Eversden • Steve Paynter • Marisa Merry • Peter Davies • Subhash • Mark Harrington • Peter Nolan • Susan New • Mark Langley - Sowter • Peter Turner • Susan Kendrick • Mary Hall • Phil Kinn • Susan Loughe • Mary Mecook • Philip Bubb • Susan Riddiough • Matthew Winslow • Philip Thomas • Susie Thorpe-Woods • Maureen Ontano • Philippa Bird • Suzanne Edwards • Maureen O'Sullivan • Philippe Bruyer • Sylvia Stirling • Melanie Squire • Phill Martin • Tammy Alston • Melvyn Green • R J Collins • Tanya Maynard • Michael King • R Taylor • Thomas Bonasera • Michael Kuaffmann • Rachel Westall • Tim Carpenter • Michelle Everitt • Randall Wright • Tim Poulston • Mike Jordan • Ray Goodearl • Tina Learmonth • Miss Swan • Ray Wall • Tony Miller • Mohamed Bennadi • Rebecca Daniels • Tony Sever • Mohamed Khalil • Richard Barnett • Tonya Gillis • Mohinder Singh • Richard Chilton • Trevor Sharman • Mr and Mrs Gallone • Richard Johns • Trisha Stewart • Mr Bhasin • Rik Deadman • V L Corani • Mr Harding • Robert Balaam • Veronica P Currie • Mr Irwin • Robert Darke • Vib Patel • Mr Warner • Roger Collins • Vlod Barchuk • Mrs Gratus • Ron Johnson • Waclaw Gasiorowski • Mrs Thompson • Ron Thorp • Will Chung • Mrs Wiltshire • Ronald Leach • Will French • Ms Sauitrie • Rosalind Lister • Yvette Easton • Nancy Duin • Rosanna Fullerton • Zoe Archer • Neal Wills • Rupert De Barr • Zoran Murphy • Neville Smith • S Deans • Nicholas Henderson • S Jenazian

Educational Institutes • Academy Gardens • Acton High School • Acton Park Children's Children's Centre Centre

Page | 21

• • Featherston High • London Diocesan • Allenby Primary School School House • ARK Priory Primary • Featherstone Primary • Mandeville School Academy and Nursery School • Maples Children's • Beaconsfield Primary • Fielding Primary School Centre and Nusery School • Gifford Primary School • Mayfield Primary School • Belvue School • Grange Primary School • Montpelier Primary • Berrmede Junior School • Grange Primary School School • Berrymede Infant and Children's Centre • Mount Carmel Catholic School • Greenfields Children's Primary School • Blair Peach Primary Centre • North Ealing Primary School • Greenford High School School • • Greenwood Primary • North Ealing Primary • Brentside Primary School School and Children's School • Grove House Children's Centre • Castlebar School Centre • North Primary School • Chair of Governors of • Hambrough Primary • East Acton Primary / School • Northolt Park Children's Vicar of St Dunstan • Hathaway Primary Centre • Christ the Saviour CE School • Oaklands Primary Primary School • Hathaway Primary School • Clifton Primary School School and Children's • Oldfield Primary School • Copley Close Children's Centre • Our Lady of the Centre • Havelock Children's Visitation Catholic • Coston Primary School Centre Primary School • Dairy Meadow Primary • Havelock Primary • Perivale Primary School School School • Perivale Primary School • Derwentwater Primary • Hobbayne Primary and Children's Centre School School • Petts Hill Primary • Dormers Wells • Holy Family Catholic School Communuity and Primary School • Petts Hill Primary Children's Centre • Horsenden Primary School and Children's • Dormers Wells High School Centre School • Horsenden Primary • Ravenor Primary School • Dormers Wells Infant School and Children's • Redwood College School and Nursery Centre • Selborne Primary • Dormers Wells Junior • Islip Manor Children's School School Centre • South Acton Children's • Downe Manor Primary • John Chilton School Centre School • John Perryn Primary • Southall Park Children's • Drayton Green Primary School Centre School • John Perryn Primary • Southfield Primary • Drayton Manor High School and Children's School School Centre • Springhallow School • Durdans Park Primary • Jubilee Children's • St Ann's School School Centre • St Anselm's Catholic • Ealing Education Centre • Khalsa Primary School Primary School • Ealing Hospital • Lady Margaret Primary • St Gregory's Catholic Children's Centre School Primary School • Ealing Music Service • Limetrees Park • St John Fisher Catholic • Ealing Primary Centre Children's Centre Primary School • Ealing Tuition Service • Little Ealing Primary • St John's Primary • East Acton Primary School School School • Log Cabin Children's • St Joseph's Catholic • Edward Betham CE Centre Primary School Primary School • London Diocesan Board • St Mark's Primary • Park High for Schools School School

Page | 22

• St Raphael's Catholic • Anstead Investments • Ealing Ex-Servicemens Primary School Limited Club Ltd • St Vincent's Catholic • Anthony O'Brien • "EALING TERTIARY Primary School • Arthur Graham COLLEGE FURTHER • Stanhope Primary • Babz Media Ltd EDUCATION School • "Balsamy Properties • CORPORATION of • Study Centre - Hospital Limited Acton Centre" Tuition • Care of Crumplins • Electricity Supply • The Cardinal Wiseman Solicitors" Nominees Limited Catholic School • Balvinder Singh • Embassy of the • The Ellen Wilkinson • Barontrade Ltd People's Democratic School for Girls • Be Ealing Cross B.V Republic of Algeria • The Study Centre • Bellaview Properties Ltd • Essential Living (North • Three Bridges Primary • BlackRock Investment Acton) Ltd School Management (UK) • Euro 5 Star Properties • Traveller Achievement Limited Limited Service • BNP Paribas • Flagstones • Tudor Primary School • Bowmans Furniture Ltd • Four Counties Training • Twyford CE High • BRB (residuary) Limited Limited School • Brendan Barrett • Foxley Estates Ltd • Vicar's Green Primary • British • Gebevieve Glover School Telecommunications • Genesis Housing • Viking Primary School PLC Association Ltd • • Brixton Estate PLC • George Meller Limited • West Acton Primary • Brixton Properties Ltd • Gurbasksh Kaur Nijjar School • Bromley Assets Limited • Harold Michael Kenton, • West Twyford Primary • Canary Central Trustee of The Rigby & School Management Ltd Peller 1995 Retirement • West Twyford Primary • Canonsfield Benefit Scheme School and Children's Developments Ltd • Helen Wilson Centre • CBRE • Hugh Edwards Gilmour • William Perkin CE High • CgMs Consulting • Jaswinder Singh School • Chalcedon Holdings Co • Jiang Cai Investments • Willow Tree Primary • Chantryco Investments Limited School Ltd • Jill Hillary Traina, • Windmill Children's • Chart Forte Court (U.K) Trustee of The Rigby & Centre Limited Peller 1995 Reti • • Windmill Park Children's • Chelsea Building John Hallewell Centre Society • June Kenton • Wolf Fields Primary • City Securities Limited • K & L Gates LLP School • Cotswold Garden • Kandasamy • Wood End Academy Centre Ltd Tharmakulasingham • Wood End Infant School • Dash Property (2000) • Khosla Investments • Wood End Library and Limited Limited Children's Centre • David Bowler • L.C.P Real Estate Ltd Associates • Lamertons World Travel Site Owners • David Howard Kenton, & Air Cargoes Limited • A Sayers Limited Trustee of The Rigby & • Ledale Investment • A2 Dominion Homes Ltd Peller 1995 Retirement Holdings Ltd • Abbeygate Executive Benefit Scheme • Leisure and Pension Scheme • David Maylon Entertainment Ltd • Ahmed Al- Amood • Dennis Mosselson • Leszek Edward • Albert Fairbank • Marian Mosselson Jakubowkski • Allied Dunbar • Derek Norman • Logandale Assets Ltd Assurance Plc • Desmond Cooney • Lombard Asset • Amber Quay Ltd • Disability Times Trust Management Ltd • • Andrew Richmond • Document Management Luigi Gerace • Ann Saville-Taylor Systems Limited • Madhvi Gerace

Page | 23

• Mango Hotels Ltd Mckendrick and Michal • Maria Alexendra George Evans Fernandes • Stephanie Oberoi • Marion Horton • Sussex Textile Co. Ltd • McGee Group Limited • Thames Materials • Michael Cutbush Limited • National Grid Gas PLC • The Carphone • Newton Joseph Warehouse Ltd Fernandes • The Five Happinesses • Nigel Spencer Sloam, Limited Trustee of The Rigby & • The Governing Body of Peller 1995 Retirement Greenford High School Benefit Scheme • The London Diocesan • Ocenaic Jewellers Ltd Fund • Onkar Singh Sahota • The Mayor Aldermen • Peter Gammell and Burgesses of the • Portal Way Trustee Borough of Ealing (Jersey) 1 Limited • The Mayor's Office for • Portal West Policing And Crime Management Company • The Random House Limited Group Limited • Promotone B.V. • The Rigby & Peller 1995 • Racina Mac Gregor Retirement Benefit • Rajinder Singh Nijjar Scheme • Regional Land Holdings • The Royal Kingdom of Ltd Saudi Arabia • Richard Drury • "The Wardens and Properties Limited Commonalty of the • Ridgeland Properties • Mystery of Goldsmiths Ltd of the City of • Rixol Group Inc • London" • Rowanmoor Trustees • The Welbeck Estates Ltd Company Limited • Rowdon Properties • Transport for London Limited (TFL) • RSN Property Ltd • Twyford Abbbey • Santander UK PLC Properties Limited • Santon Property • Union International Company Limited Enterprises Limited • • Saudi Embassy - Asset Vanguard Engineering and Property Lead c/o (Holdings) Ltd the Saudi Embassy, • Vinod Kumar Bedi London • Virginia Jani • Savills • WASPS FC • Savitaben Patel • Water Tower Housing • Shurgard UK Ltd Co-Operative Ltd • Southern Electric Power • Zurich Assurance Ltd Distribution Plc • Spaces Personal Storage Ltd • St James West London Ltd • St. Martins Property Investments Limited • Stanley William Simmons, Harry Brian Boreham, Ian Whillis

Page | 24

Appendix B.1 – Respondents

Community groups

• Acton Green Residents Association • Ealing Civic Society (ECS) • Ealing Wildlife Network (EWN) • Friends of Minet Country Park • Southfield Ward Panel Member • St Alban’s Community Association • West Ealing Centre Neighbourhood Forum (WECNF)

Local Residents

• Richard Chilton • Susan Loughe • Gerald McGregor • Sarah Mitchell • John Wright

Educational Institutions

• East Acton Primary School (Head Teacher) • East Acton Primary School (Chair of Governors / Vicar of St Dunstan) • Elthorne Park High School • Governing Body of Oaklands Primary School • London Diocesan Board for Schools (Inigo Woolf, Chief Executive) • London Diocesan Board for Schools (Michael Bye, Director of Property) • Mount Carmel Catholic School • West Twyford Primary School

Site owner

• Dr Onkar Sahota • Hovedean Properties • Telereal Trillium (Damian Molony) • Vanguard Holdings Limited

Statutory

• Canal & River Trust • Greater London Authority (GLA) • Highways Agency • Hillingdon Council • Natural England

Page | 25

Respondents – Call for sites

• Sarah Mitchell (local resident) • Melanie Squire (local resident) • Governing Body of Oaklands Primary School (Education Institute) • Neil Bleakley (Ealing Council) • Boyer Planning Ltd on behalf ‘The Independent School’ (Education Institute) • Twyford Church of England Academies Trust (Education Institute)

Page | 26

Appendix B.2 – Response Forms

Page | 27

Page | 28

Page | 29

Page | 30

Page | 31

Page | 32

Page | 33

Page | 34

Page | 35

Page | 36

Appendix B.3 - Public Notice

Page | 37

Appendix B.4 – Consultation letter

Page | 38

Appendix C.1 – Respondents • Gordon Cox (PFS/PV17) • Karina Cryer (PFS/PV69) Community / local groups • Aled Davies (PFS/PV59) • Acton History Group • Chief Akinwande Delano (PFS/PV107) (PFS/PV120) • Acton Mums 4 Mums • Patricia Despond (PFS/PV96) (PFS/PV40) • Alexander Engler (PFS/PV110) • Ealing Civic Society (ECS) • Shelia Flexen (PFS/PV64) (PFS/PV79) • James Freeman (PFS/PV91) • Ealing Cricket Ground • Martin Freeman (PFS/PV25) Conservation Area Panel • Rouben Galichian (PFS/PV123) (PFS/PV67) • Peter Gallagher (PFS/PV37) • London Pulse Basketball Club • Mr & Mrs Gandhi (PFS/PV54) (PFS/PV38, 63, 74, 83, 85) • Andrew Green (PFS/PV35) • Park Crest Residents • Beth Gregory (PFS/PV23) Association (PFS/PV34) • Sophie Harrowes (PFS/PV76) • St Peter's Parish Church • John Haston (PFS/PV82) (PFS/PV20) • Daniel Hazan (PFS/PV53) • The Covenant Movement • Tony Hesketh (PFS/PV11) (PFS/PV49) • Tobias Hitman (PFS/PV93) • West Twyford Residents' • Abid Hussain (PFS/PV65) Association (PFS/PV81) • Guy Hutchinson (PFS/PV78) Council • Iciar Irigoyen (PFS/PV10) • Lisa Jain (PFS/PV62) • Active Ealing (PFS/PV6) • Mohit Jain (PFS/PV45) • Atiya Jamal (PFS/PV84) Local residents • Franck Jeandon (PFS/PV15) • Dr E Abayomi (PFS/PV119) • Ken Johnson (PFS/PV109) • Eldar Aghayev (PFS/PV112) • Rishi Kansagra (PFS/PV98) • Susan Aljibouri (PFS/PV68) • Sushma Kara (PFS/PV50) • Luay Alkasab (PFS/PV87) • Yoko Kegawa (PFS/PV99) • J Allibone (PFS/PV104) • Clive Kendall (PFS/PV111) • Joanne Austin (PFS/PV70) • Stewart Kendall (PFS/PV19) • Rachael Azimi (PFS/PV48) • Haig Kiremidjian (PFS/PV27) • Sudhen Bhayani (PFS/PV66) • Tessa Kostrzewa (PFS/PV14) • Stephanie Bottom (PFS/PV39) • Henna Lad (PFS/PV46) • F P Boulton (PFS/PV97) • Dr MMA Ladipo (PFS/PV121) • Naomi Breen (PFS/PV73) • Helen Langsam (PFS/PV28) • Suzan Chalabe (PFS/PV94) • Rachel Lohan (PFS/PV21) • Mandy Cheung (PFS/PV44) • Davinder Mander (PFS/PV77) • Tasmin Connett (PFS/PV36) • Harinder Mander (PFS/PV52) • Bryony Cove (PFS/PV90) • Karen McCready (PFS/PV57)

Page | 39

• David Mealing (PFS/PV88) Educational Institutions • Paul Miller (PFS/PV60) • Ealing Fields Academy Trust • Sarah Mitchell (PFS/PV26) (PFS/PV61) • Tobias Morris (PFS/PV12) • Gifford Primary School • Maxwell Nisner (PFS/PV118) (PFS/PV2) • Freida Paget (PFS/PV103) • St Mary's Church of England • Catharine Partridge (PFS/PV4) (PFS/PV100) • Julian Partridge (PFS/PV22) • Twyford Academies Trust • Maurice & Valerie Peacock (PFS/PV47) (PFS/PV116) • Twyford C of E High School • Daniela Petrassi (PFS/PV89) Academies Trust (PFS/PV24) • Alexandra Pidgeon (PFS/PV43) • Dina Polydorou (PFS/PV8) Site owners • John Polydorou (PFS/PV13) • CgMs on behalf of Parkview • Jayesh Popat (PFS/PV86) International London Ltd • Madeleine Reid (PFS/PV31) (PFS/PV71) • Stacey Reyes (PFS/PV75) • GL Hearn on behalf of Michael • Karima Salem (PFS/PV92) Hunt (PFS/PV7) • Kishore and Chanchal Samtani (PFS/PV114) Statutory body • Akiko Sasaki (PFS/PV56) • Education Funding Agency • Hootan Sherafat (PFS/PV51) (EFA) (PFS/PV101) • Janet Skinner (PFS/PV102) • Environment Agency • V A Smith (PFS/PV106) (PFS/PV117) • Robert Stansfield (PFS/PV55) • Greater London Authority (GLA) • Mr and Mrs Stanton (PFS/PV105) (PFS/PV95) • Highways Agency (PFS/PV1) • Linda Stringer (PFS/PV30) • Historic England (PFS/PV72) • Emily Sweet (PFS/PV33) • Natural England (PFS/PV3) • Kaoru Takeuchi (PFS/PV115) • Sports England (PFS/PV5) • Juyee W Teo (PFS/PV113) • The Greater London • Jack Thornborough Archaeological Advisory Service (PFS/PV122) (GLAAS) (PFS/PV124) • Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras • Transport for London (TfL) (PFS/PV108) (PFS/PV125) • Moira Torbica (PFS/PV9)

• Masako Trench (PFS/PV42) • Jill Ward (PFS/PV18) Other • David Warrell (PFS/PV32) • Richard Lane (PFS/PV16) • James Whillis (PFS/PV41) • Suzanne Whillis (PFS/PV58) • Dr Neil Yates (PFS/PV29)

Page | 40

Appendix C.2 – Response Forms

Page | 41

Page | 42

Page | 43

Page | 44

Page | 45

Page | 46

Appendix C.3 - Public Notice

Page | 47

Appendix C.4 – Consultation letter

Page | 48

Appendix D – Summary of representations and the Council’s response

Rep: PFS/PV1 (1 of 1) Name: Barbara Barnes On behalf of: Highways Agency Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: The HA is an executive agency of the Department for Transport (DfT). We are responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England's strategic road network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. The HA will be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact on the safe and efficient operation of the SRN. We have reviewed the documents available and conclude that we do not have any comments at this time. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV2 (1 of 1) Name: Carol McDade On behalf of: Gifford Primary School Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Although Gifford Primary School has been expanded to a 120 admission number, we are concerned that we were very oversubscribed last year for admission to our ‘Reception’ year and currently have 31 on the waiting list. The last 2 years has seen waiting lists grow for all other year groups and we have had 24 appeals for admission to the school in the last 3 years and these are becoming more frequent. There are significant housing developments in the area with the number of residences increasing with plans to increase the density of properties. The company responsible for the regeneration work are concerned that there will be no places for children moving in to the area. The expected increase in new properties within this regeneration project is 200 which is significant if the majority of these become homes to families with school aged children. Has all of this been taken in to consideration when compiling the plan please? Council response: Yes, the demographic projections, as outlined in the background Demography paper, have taken into account housing development. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV3 (1 of 2) Name: Gillian Fensome On behalf of: Natural England Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Natural England does not consider that this Planning for Schools Development Plan Document poses any likely or significant risk to those features of the natural environment1 for which we would otherwise provide a more detailed consultation response and so does not wish to make specific comment on the details of this consultation. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV3 (2 of 2) Name: Gillian Fensome On behalf of: Natural England Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Habitats Regulations Assessment Having regard to the previous correspondence relating to the Habitats Regulations and the assessment of these plans under that legislation, it would be Natural England’s view that, given the time which has elapsed since the original conclusion (in 2011) that no further assessment would be required, a short update to the HRA screening would be necessary. This wouldn’t need to be exhaustive, however, would just need to demonstrate that nothing has significantly changed since the original assessment was made, such that a similar conclusion can potentially be reached. Council response: The Council submitted an update to the HRA screening assessment and has subsequently received an acknowledgement from Natural England confirming no objection. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV4 (1 of 1) Name: Catharine Partridge On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I am the parent of a Year 5 child at North Ealing Primary School and due to the pressure on places at secondary schools particularly from September 2016 onwards, greatly welcome the proposal to build a new school in the borough. We live on Woodfield Road and fall into a grey area with regards to secondary schools due to an absence of schools from Brentside and Drayton Manor to Acton High. Consequently I greatly support the proposed site of the former Barclays Playing Ground for the third Twyford School due to its location which would service the families of children at Montpelier and North Ealing in particular, who are on the outer catchment areas of other secondary's. This would make a huge difference to the local community, whose children often travel large distances to non-local schools, and also make use of a large site with ready-made playing fields. As the area is currently unused, it would not detract or encroach on existing public areas or facilities. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV5 (1 of 6) Name: Katy Walker On behalf of: Sport England Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT7 Question 5: The DPD does not appear to have regard to national policy. The DPD does not reference or appear to have regard to paragraphs 73 and 74 of the NPPF Question 6: (b) Justified (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: The DPD is considered unsound with regards to the allocation of the following sites: S-ACT7 - Land rear of Twyford High School, Road. The above sites are all playing field site as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010. As such regard must be had to paragraph 73 and 74 of the NPPF. It should be noted that these paragraphs apply irrespective of ownership and applies equally to sites in private, education or local authority ownership. Para 73 of the NPPF states: "…Planning policies should be based on robust and up‑to‑date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required." No mention to paragraph 73 is made within the DPD. Sport England is aware that LB of Ealing does not currently have a robust and robust and up‑to‑date assessments of the needs for playing fields as it is currently working with Ealing who are in the process of commissioning this work. Sport England is keen to continue to work positively with LB of Ealing to carry out this work and assist in its preparation. However, until this work has been complete (approximately 8 months' time), the allocation of these sites is premature and could result in the loss of playing field land for which there is an identified strategic need. The DPD is considered unjustified in this regards and not in accordance with National Policy. Other comments: Council response: The siting of land designated for school use at S-ACT7 now excludes the playing fields. The proposed siting is now within the existing building footprint only, and is allocated in this DPD for temporary provision only, pending permanent provision at another site. Furthermore, proposed revised wording to Policy 1, additional text at para 4.22 and new para 5.11 confirm respectively that uses other than education uses would not be justified; ensure minimum site area to provide the education facilities is allocated; and introduce time-limited de-designation from MOL if sites are not developed and evidence indicates they are no longer required. Whilst these changes have been suggested in response to GLA reps, they also address the response from Sport England. In terms of the playing pitch strategy, as noted, Ealing are working with Sport England to produce the Strategy, the first draft of which will be produced later in 2015 with view to adoption in early 2016. The DPD will not compromise the Strategy; through allocating these sites for schools there is likely to be a net gain in pitch provision, as the schools will provide pitches on land currently in private ownership which will be brought into wider community/public use. Proposed changes: Appendix 1 Mapping change to revise the boundary to exclude the playing field and identify the existing building footprint only. Policy and supporting text changes as noted.

Rep: PFS/PV5 (2 of 6) Name: Katy Walker On behalf of: Sport England Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT7 Question 5: as above Question 6: (b) Justified (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: In terms of paragraph 74 of the NPPF, it states: " Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: ● an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or ● 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 ● the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss." Paragraph 74 should be used in the allocation of sites in policy and not just as part of the development management process. The allocation of site without regard to paragraph 74, sets a dangerous precedent which is difficult to address or overcome at application stage. Local authorities should only allocate playing field sites for development it is certain that the first bullet point of para 74 applies. It cannot be certain of this until it has completed is assessment, much later this year. In order to make the DPD sound Sport England requests that site S-ACT7 be removed from allocation. Other comments: Council response: See above - S-ACT7 no longer includes the playing field. Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV5 (3 of 6) Name: Katy Walker On behalf of: Sport England Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: The DPD does not appear to have regard to national policy. The DPD does not reference or appear to have regard to paragraphs 73 and 74 of the NPPF. Question 6: (b) Justified (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: The DPD is considered unsound with regards to the allocation of the following sites: S-EAL4 - Former Barclays Sports Ground, Park View Road The above sites are all playing field site as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010. As such regard must be had to paragraph 73 and 74 of the NPPF. It should be noted that these paragraphs apply irrespective of ownership and applies equally to sites in private, education or local authority ownership. Para 73 of the NPPF states: "…Planning policies should be based on robust and up‑to‑date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required." No mention to paragraph 73 is made within the DPD. Sport England is aware that LB of Ealing does not currently have a robust and robust and up‑to‑date assessments of the needs for playing fields as it is currently working with Ealing who are in the process of commissioning this work. Sport England is keen to continue to work positively with LB of Ealing to carry out this work and assist in its preparation. However, until this work has been complete (approximately 8 months' time), the allocation of these sites is premature and could result in the loss of playing field land for which there is an identified strategic need. The DPD is considered unjustified in this regards and not in accordance with National Policy. Other comments: Council response: Noted - see above re: Playing Pitch Strategy Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV5 (4 of 6) Name: Katy Walker On behalf of: Sport England Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: as above Question 6: (b) Justified (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: In terms of paragraph 74 of the NPPF, it states: " Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: ● an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or ● 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 ● the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss." Paragraph 74 should be used in the allocation of sites in policy and not just as part of the development management process. The allocation of site without regard to paragraph 74, sets a dangerous precedent which is difficult to address or overcome at application stage. Local authorities should only allocate playing field sites for development it is certain that the first bullet point of para 74 applies. It cannot be certain of this until it has completed is assessment, much later this year. In order to make the DPD sound Sport England requests that site S-EAL4 be removed from allocation. Other comments: Council response: Revised wording to Policy 1, additional text at para 4.22 and new para 5.11 confirm respectively that uses other than education uses would not be justified; ensure minimum site area to provide the education facilities is allocated; and introduce time- limited de-designation from MOL if evidence indicates the education provision is no longer required. Whilst these changes have been suggested in response to GLA reps, they also address the response from Sport England. See Council's response above relating to Playing Pitch Strategy; through allocating this site for school use there is likely to be a net gain in pitch provision borough-wide, as the school would provide pitches on land currently in private ownership which will be brought into wider community/public use. Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV5 (5 of 6) Name: Katy Walker On behalf of: Sport England Paragraph no or site ref: S-HAN1 Question 5: The DPD does not appear to have regard to national policy. The DPD does not reference or appear to have regard to paragraphs 73 and 74 of the NPPF. Question 6: (b) Justified (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: The DPD is considered unsound with regards to the allocation of the following sites: S-HAN1 - Eversheds Sports Ground, Hanwell The above sites are all playing field site as defined in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010. As such regard must be had to paragraph 73 and 74 of the NPPF. It should be noted that these paragraphs apply irrespective of ownership and applies equally to sites in private, education or local authority ownership. Para 73 of the NPPF states: "…Planning policies should be based on robust and up‑to‑date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required." No mention to paragraph 73 is made within the DPD. Sport England is aware that LB of Ealing does not currently have a robust and robust and up‑to‑date assessments of the needs for playing fields as it is currently working with Ealing who are in the process of commissioning this work. Sport England is keen to continue to work positively with LB of Ealing to carry out this work and assist in its preparation. However, until this work has been complete (approximately 8 months' time), the allocation of these sites is premature and could result in the loss of playing field land for which there is an identified strategic need. The DPD is considered unjustified in this regards and not in accordance with National Policy. Other comments: Council response: Site HAN1 is proposed as a contingency site only to provide temporary provision for initial forms of entry in the event delivery of a permanent site is delayed . The DPD allocation relates to the existing building only (which is already in temporary education use) and does not propose de-designation of additional MOL land. Revised wording to Policy 1, additional text at para 4.22 and new para 5.11 confirm respectively that uses other than education uses would not be justified; ensure minimum site area to provide the education facilities is allocated; and introduce time- limited de-designation from MOL if evidence indicates the education provision is no longer required. Whilst these changes have been suggested in response to GLA reps, they also address the response from Sport England. See Council's response above relating to Playing Pitch Strategy. Proposed changes: Changes to policy and supporting text as noted

Rep: PFS/PV5 (6 of 6) Name: Katy Walker On behalf of: Sport England Paragraph no or site ref: S-HAN1 Question 5: as above Question 6: (b) Justified (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: In terms of paragraph 74 of the NPPF, it states: " Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless: ● an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or ● 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 ● the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss." Paragraph 74 should be used in the allocation of sites in policy and not just as part of the development management process. The allocation of site without regard to paragraph 74, sets a dangerous precedent which is difficult to address or overcome at application stage. Local authorities should only allocate playing field sites for development it is certain that the first bullet point of para 74 applies. It cannot be certain of this until it has completed is assessment, much later this year. In order to make the DPD sound Sport England requests that site S-HAN1 be removed from allocation. Other comments: Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change.

Rep: PFS/PV6 (1 of 5) Name: Julia Robertson On behalf of: Active Ealing Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Community use of education sites In order to make the best use of limited resources and to encourage all sections of the community to become more active, the Council through planning conditions, should ensure that all new indoor and outdoor sports facilities located on school sites, are available for community use outside of school hours, at a reasonable price and with appropriate staffing and management systems in place. The Ealing Sports Facility Strategy 2012 – 21 gives a full summary of Ealing’s indoor and outdoor sports facility needs and also details the planning policy statements associated with existing and new indoor and outdoor sports facilities including those on school sites. The full document can be found at the following link http://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/200087/sports_and_leisure/43/ealing_sports_facility_st rategy_2012-2021 In order to address strategic facility need across the borough, current facility gaps as detailed below should be considered when planning any new school sports facilities. Council response: Support noted. The need to ensure increased availability of indoor and outdoor sports facilities on school sites is noted and is reflected in Para 2.4 of the DPD which cites London Plan Policy 3.18, encouraging development proposals which 'maximise the extended or multiple use of educational facilities for community and recreational use' on school premises. Such provision would usually be secured by legal agreement and/or condition on a planning application. Proposed changes: No change Rep: PFS/PV6 (2 of 5) Name: Julia Robertson On behalf of: Active Ealing Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Current indoor facility need in Ealing Swimming pools: Ealing has a deficit of swimming pools, approximately the equivalent of a 6 lane 25m pool. Sports halls: Ealing has and will have in the future a large deficit of badminton courts, a 6 court venue would be ideal to allow the flexibility of hosting a wide range of sports including netball, handball, indoor hockey, basketball and indoor cricket. Dance studios or ancillary multi use halls: These are proving to be vital for school and community delivery, as they give a dedicated space for group exercise activities such as yoga, pilates, dance and aerobics as well as martial arts. Community programming and use of these facilities is mainly aimed at women, who traditionally have lower physical activity participation rates than men and tend to prefer these types of activity more than traditional outdoor team sports or indoor sports hall activities. Gyms: There is probably a balance between the supply and demand for gyms in Ealing, but the provision of a gym is often seem as complimentary to other indoor facilities such as studios and sports halls.. Indoor Tennis: Ealing has a deficit of indoor courts, approximately equivalent to a seven court tennis centre. However, the demand for this type of facility is difficult to judge. Indoor Bowls: Ealing doesn’t have an indoor bowls facility and could possibly support a small indoor rink, however this facility would be best placed alongside existing outdoor facilities. Gymnastics and Trampolining: Ealing has no dedicated indoor facility for these two sports, British Gymnastics has stated that this type of facility is needed in the borough. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV6 (3 of 5) Name: Julia Robertson On behalf of: Active Ealing Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Current outdoor facility need in Ealing Cricket, Football and Rugby: Overall Ealing doesn’t need a significant number of new pitches, but what it does need is better quality cricket and football pitches with the appropriate quality ancillary facilities including changing rooms and social space. Tennis and or Multi Use Games Areas (MUGA’s): These facilities often double up as playground space; for year round use, the courts need to be floodlit. Artificial Grass Pitches (AGP’s): Ealing has a significant deficit of AGP’s accessible to the community, especially those with a 3G surface. Floodlit AGP’s allow more intensive use of facilities and provide perfect year round training facilities for football, rugby and hockey. Technological advancements have resulted in AGP surfaces that are appropriate for certain levels of football, rugby and hockey. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV6 (4 of 5) Name: Julia Robertson On behalf of: Active Ealing Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Facilities on school sites New indoor sports facilities located on a school site should be designed so that they have minimal impact on the rest of the school and its buildings. Positioning the community facilities at the front of a site with straightforward access routes will enable and promote community use and ensure all sections of the community benefit from new sports facilities on school sites. Improvements to existing sports facilities on school sites should only occur where clear resourcing and management arrangements are in place to ensure affordable community use outside of schools hours for the benefit of all of Ealing’s residents. Opening school facilities to the wider community will have a positive impact on accessibility standards that aim to ensure that all residents of Ealing are within a reasonable travel time of sports facilities, in line with the requirements of the Audit Commission, all facilities in an urban area should be within a 20 minute walking catchment. In terms of quality, all community use sports facilities should be built to conform to the design and layout requirements of Sport England or the relevant National Governing Body of Sport. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV6 (5 of 5) Name: Julia Robertson On behalf of: Active Ealing Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Sport England’s Accessing Schools Toolkit Schools should be directed to Sport England’s new Accessing Schools Toolkit which has been developed to help schools understand what’s involved with community use of school facilities. It offers practical advice on all aspects of promoting, operating and managing a sustainable dual use facility whilst maintaining a school’s core business. http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/schools-access/schools- toolkit/ The Toolkit was designed in light of Active Places data which identified that nationally a significant number of sports facilities are located on school and wider education sites: • 76% of sports halls • 73% of artificial grass pitches • 29% of swimming pools • 52% of grass pitches in England This means that a lot of the country’s sports facilities lie empty in the evening and at weekends, whilst at the same time many sports clubs and teams are desperately crying out for somewhere to play. This national picture is mirrored in Ealing where some existing school facilities lie unused during weekday evenings and weekends as well as during school holidays; thus any new school facility should be designed to enable community use of its sports facilities and planning conditions put in place which facilitate sustainable and affordable community use. Sport England also notes that schools are often the cornerstone of their local communities and there are many advantages to opening up school facilities, including: (see rep for full details) Educational attainment and attendance Improved performance by underachieving students Training and career opportunities Increased funding opportunities Positive image and brand awareness Promotional opportunity in your community Sporting opportunities for staff and pupils Security Suitability Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV7 (1 of 1) Name: Ruth Beard GL Hearn On behalf of: Michael Hunt Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: We are writing on behalf of our Client, Michael Hunt, in respect of the draft ‘Planning for Schools’ Development Plan Document – Publication Version’ (PfS DPD), which has been published for consultation until 3rd April 2015. Michael Hunt owns the land known as Middlesex Business Park (‘the Site’) and has submitted a planning application for the residential-led mixed use development of this site. GL Hearn previously submitted representations to the Planning for Schools Development Plan Document, Issues and Options on behalf of Michael Hunt in December 2013. These representations proposed the removal of the Middlesex Business Park (Site Ref: S-SOU1), due to the lack of justification provided for proposing a school in this location and further to discussions with LB Ealing Planning Officers which confirmed that a school was no longer required at this location. We note that this latest draft of the document (February 2015) no longer proposes the Middlesex Business Centre as a potential location for a new school and on behalf of our Client; we strongly support this change to the document. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV8 (1 of 1) Name: Dina Polydorou On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: I would like to support the opening of a new school on the ground mentioned above. My daughter is in Year 5 at the moment and having just seen the places offered to this year's Year 6s, it is IMPERATIVE that we have a new high school by 2016. There are not enough places for the amount of children in the borough.

The borough of Ealing is in desperate need a new school and I fully support the North Twyford new school project. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV9 (1 of 1) Name: Moira Torbica On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV10 (1 of 1) Name: Iciar Irigoyen On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV11 (1 of 1) Name: Tony Hesketh On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: I do believe that the process is sound and legally compliant. I would like to emphasize that I am fully behind the urgent need to provide a new school north of Ealing Broadway, namely the 'North Twyford' new school (Twyford Academies Trust and Ark) and the ideal location of the former Barclays Sports Ground - Site Reference S-EAL4. This area of the Borough of Ealing fails within no clear catchment area, plus the existing schools are heavily oversubscribed and the area is in desperate need for additional school places to meet the shortfall. I do hope that the council proceed with as much haste as possible to conclude the expansion of school places in the borough of Ealing and has my full backing. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV12 (1 of 1) Name: Tobias Morris On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: It is clear that Ealing needs new schools asap. The fallout from Ealing Fields Free school not opening seems clear and there are many children not being able to go to local secondary schools as a result. It is essential that North Twyford opens in September 2016 so as to ensure that as many children as possible can go to a state school in their local community. In terms of the sites under consideration, it seems clear that the old Barclays Bank Sports ground (Site Reference S-EAL4) would be an excellent site to develop for the new North Twyford School. Not only has this land been left sadly to waste for many years now without any use, but the site is right in the middle of an area which has no natural secondary school. This site would perfectly serve the north of the borough for a new school and I believe this site should be developed for the new North Twyford School. I hope that Ealing Council and EFA will see fit to ensure that North Twyford opens in September 2016. The lack of secondary school places at a local school for those who live in North Ealing is shameful and ensuring that North Twyford opens in September 2016 will go some way to assisting with this situation. S-EAL4 (former Barclays Bank Sports Ground) would be the perfect site and should be developed for this purpose. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV13 (1 of 1) Name: John Polydorou On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: With two children one of which is looking for entry into secondary school in 2016 the other only a few years behind, I am very concerned about the short fall of secondary school places in our area and I feel North Twyford and the development of the former Barclays playing fields would be an outstanding opportunity and secondary school. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV14 (1 of 1) Name: Tessa Kostrzewa On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: As parents of a child who will start secondary school in 2017 we are keen to express our support for North Twyford CoE school, and would very much favour the former Barclays Playing Fields as a site for the school, as North Ealing is in desperate need of a secondary school for pupils from North Ealing Primary and Montpelier school, among others. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV15 (1 of 1) Name: Franck Jeandon On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV16 (1 of 2) Name: Richard Lane On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: I support the legal compliance and soundness of the proposed site. The proposed site is a very suitable location for a new secondary school and has a number of advantages over other possible sites. It is accessible with minimal disruption to local residents and it is in an area of high need for school places where local residents currently have limited options. The site also provides ample play space and potential for community sports use. It is appropriate that part of the site is made available for a limited enabling development. The site also has the advantage that a new school could be built on it quite quickly – and there is an urgent need for additional school places. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV16 (2 of 2) Name: Richard Lane On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT7 Question 5: I support the legal compliance and soundness of the proposed site. Given its proximity to an existing, excellent secondary school which is on a constrained site and the proposed site is underused it is obvious that the proposed site should be designated for educational use so that the neighbouring school can expand to efficiently help meet the pressing need for more high school places in the area. At a time of highly constrained public expenditure it is more efficient to expand existing schools or build new schools of an economic size than to build smaller schools. The site could be developed quite quickly to meet the urgent need. It is accessible with minimal disruption to local residents and it is in an area of high need for school places where local residents currently have limited options. The site also provides ample play space and potential for greater use for community sport which could be facilitated by the school. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV17 (1 of 1) Name: Gordon Cox On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Thank you for the consultant which I full support, as there is a desperate need in the North of the Borough for secondary schools that are not just open to just Catholics, but to all religions. Therefore the endeavours to open a new site which would serve the north of the borough (the former Barclays Sports Ground – Site ReferenceS- EAL4) is greatly appreciated. Having a local school boday that is already familiar with Greenford and Acton, will also benefit the Ealing. The governing body will be able to become quickly established, as it is already familiar with the area and amenities. I hope you are able to bring this development plan to a quick and successful resolution. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV18 (1 of 1) Name: Jill Ward On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV19 (1 of 1) Name: Stewart Kendall On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: All Question 5: I support the legal compliance and soundness of the DPD, in relation to the requirements set out in the accompanying Notes, section 2. I consider it to be clear, justified, reasoned, effective, and consistent with national policy. The borough of Ealing urgently requires additional school places, and I am particularly supportive of Site Reference S-EAL4 (the former Barclays Sports Ground), primarily due to is close proximity to a major transport hub. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV20 (1 of 1) Name: David Neno On behalf of: St Peter's Parish Church Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV21 (1 of 1) Name: Rachel Lohan On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I am an interested parent, living in the Pitshanger Lane area of Ealing. My four children have all attended North Ealing Primary School (one is still there in Year 3). I currently have two daughters at Ellen Wilkinson school and one in the sixth form at Twyford. Along with many other parents in Pitshanger, I have felt for a very long time that there is no natural secondary school for children from North Ealing (and Montpelier) primary school to attend. I have seen hundreds of children over the years scattered to different high schools – both state and private – and this has always been a source of sadness to me and many others that I know. We have all held out hope since our children were small that one day a secondary school would be built to serve our area. As such, it feels very important to me that the Barclays Sports Ground Site on Park Hill (Site Reference S-EAL4) should be prioritised for the new Twyford-run high school. It would be very disappointing for us if this valuable opportunity to plug the gap in provision in our area were wasted. I realise there are difficulties with acquiring the site, but I hope you will take the points I make here into consideration. I know I am speaking for a large number of parents. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV22 (1 of 1) Name: Julian Partridge On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I would like to register my strong support for situating the proposed new North Twyford School, serving the north of Ealing borough, at the Barclays Bank Sports Ground site (S-EAL4). Aside from providing desperately needed secondary school places, locating the school on this site would be a sensible use of otherwise dormant urban space, allowing for a spacious and well positioned educational environment. I also believe the new school will be a positive boost to the local community, offering continuing local education for children and parents who would otherwise need to look further afield for secondary provision. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV23 (1 of 1) Name: Beth Gregory On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: In addition to the form I would like to take this opportunity to express the strength of support from myself and a great many local parents for the development of the former Barclays Sports Ground (site reference S-EAL4) as a location for a new secondary school supporting the needs of families in the north of the borough. There is a huge demand for a new school in this area and an urgent need for a school to open in 2016. We understand that the presently named North Twyford School is looking to open their new school here and think this would be excellent for community and for the area as a whole. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV24 (1 of 2) Name: Tony Mckee On behalf of: Twyford C of E High School Academies Trust Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT7 Question 5: Ealing has a real urgent need for school places as the population continues to increase. This is described in DPD documentation. The current schools are unable to cope as they are at maximum capacity and new ones need to built urgently to meet demand. The DPD is necessary to generate sites where additional schools can be built to meet the demand for school places. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV24 (2 of 2) Name: Tony Mckee On behalf of: Twyford C of E High School Academies Trust Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Ealing has a real urgent need for school places as the population continues to increase. This is described in DPD documentation. The current schools are unable to cope as they are at maximum capacity and new ones need to built urgently to meet demand. The DPD is necessary to generate sites where additional schools can be built to meet the demand for school places. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV25 (1 of 1) Name: Martin Freeman On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV26 (1 of 1) Name: Sarah Mitchell On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: It is particularly important to me that the former Barclays Sports Ground – Site Reference S-EAL4 be considered for development as a school a soon as possible. I believe that this development is essential to provide necessary school places whilst retaining green land that might be lost were the land developed for any other purpose. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV27 (1 of 1) Name: Haig Kiremidjian On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV28 (1 of 1) Name: Helen Langsam On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I fully support the Barclay's Site as a location for the new North Twyford CoE school. There is a real need for a secondary school in this area Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV29 (1 of 1) Name: Neil Yates On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV30 (1 of 1) Name: Linda Stringer On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: I fully support a New Twyford high school at the Barclays Sports Ground Site or nearby. There is a great need for such a school. We need it for my son who will be going to high school in 2018. There is nowhere else for him to go. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV31 (1 of 1) Name: Madeleine Reid On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I am sending this email in support for the North Twyford new school project. As a mother of two boys at Montpelier Primary School, I am acutely aware of the lack of any high schools for my children to progress to after their primary education. The situation is critical at the moment, with the current children being spread in all directions (with many seeing no choose but to move out of London, leaving all their friends and loved ones behind). This is a problem which is only going to get worse in the coming years. All our primary schools in the area has had to increase their intake the last couple years to meet the demand of a growing population, yet unfortunately it seems that no one has considered where all these extra children will go when it's time for secondary school. HELP!!! Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV32 (1 of 1) Name: David Warrell On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: We are very much in favour of the North Twyford CoE High School being at the former Barclays Sports Ground site (ref: S-EAL4). Demand is high and catchments reducing in size, to the extent that our current location is no longer within the Brentside or Drayton catchments for at least the last two years. This is a considerable concern for us and other parents in this area. I am certain S-EAL4 is the perfect location for a new high school and for the additional capacity required. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV33 (1 of 1) Name: Emily Sweet On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I wish to express my support for the development of a further Ealing secondary school on the site of the former Barclays Sports Ground. Location-wise, this is surely the largest geographical area in the borough not currently containing a secondary school, and the potential for development of such a spacious and suitable site is unarguable. I very much hope that you find similar support expressed elsewhere Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV34 (1 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: It has been brought to our attention that many of those living opposite or near to the former Barclays Bank Sports Ground and Club House, having a long frontage to Park View Road, have not been notified of the 's Development Plan for building, or extending existing schools, on six sites in Ealing including 'Barclays'. On the assumption that you are not aware that the proposed scheme has not been explained to the residents affected by the inclusion of the former Sports Ground of Barclays Bank we have distributed the 'Publication version' of 'Planning for Schools Development Plan Document at our own expense. We have asked the neighbours to read this carefully to see if it will affect their property and to write to you with their objections to this aspect of the scheme for further Secondary schools in the Borough. I'm sorry that, as a volunteer in the Residents Association, it has taken me longer than I hoped to circulate the document to them all, apart from the flats, but it was only last week that I discovered that virtually no one else, apart from Tony Hitman FRICS of No.14, Daniel Hazan of No. 36 and Dr. Stansfield of 11, Thorn Tree Court who helped me in writing this letter, have received the documents nor the important, as I will explain later, the equally important subsidiary statement, "Demography, Projections and School Place Planning Methodology" to which I refer later. I realise that there is also a 'Representation Form' for our objections, that we are asked to complete by Friday 3r April (Good Friday and the start of the Easter Holiday) which I will be sending completed together with this letter written to the Planning Department for your attention as the designated case officer. I have asked the members of the Association, who I have had the time to contact, and who agree with our arguments, and that of my three colleagues mentioned above, to write, giving their name, address and clear signature to you, Ms Powell, and to pass our representations on to the officers of the Planning Department and the Cabinet members promoting the scheme. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Extensive consultation was undertaken on the DPD consistent with other Local Plan consultations and in accordance with the SCI. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV34 (2 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: Briefly, the Barclays Bank site, which is privately owned by an 'OffShore' investment overseas company, is one of the six sites that is now under threat for purchase by your Council, which we assume will have to use compulsory purchase powers if the land cannot be bought by private acquisition. The Barclays Bank site is pictured on page 24 with the area (currently the previous sports club building) outlined in red which is where the High School building will, so we understand, be constructed with, presumably, the remainder for the school's sports facilities. Importantly, your Council recognises in 4.19 that Barclays, as in others of the 'six' of the sites, are designated as 'Community Open Spaces' (COS) or, as in this case, Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). Further, on the north side of Park View Road, our houses border on to a Nature Conservation site of Importance. Although we are all aware of the need, in principle, for more provision for High schools in the Borough there are three grounds of objection for the inclusion of the Park View Road Site. We have identified these under the headings of 'Planning Policy', 'Demography' and 'Restrictive Covenants' which I will deal with in reverse order for convenience if I may: Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: The Education Funding Agency have approved applications for several Free Schools in the borough and are facilitating the acquisition of sites for the Free School providers to help meet the identified need for school places in the borough. Whilst the Council has CPO powers to acquire sites, this is not the preferred option at this stage. The location of the proposed school building is confirmed on mapping at Appendix 1. Proposed changes: No change.

Rep: PFS/PV34 (3 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: The Restrictive Covenant Some years ago with the considerable and continuing help of Victor Mishiku founder of the 'Covenant Movement' we found that there is a restrictive covenant for the benefit of all of us, who live on the Hanger Hill Estate, established by the Wood family who owned the Estate, originally of 900 acres of Ealing, which they set up in the nineteenth century. I gathered, in or about 1984, from a chartered surveyor colleague of mine, David Turner, the chief surveyor of Barclays Bank, that the 'then' 'Barclays Bank Ltd.' were advised when the land was purchased on 4th November 1921 for use as a sports ground, that it was stated in the purchase agreement that if, at any time, it were not used for that purpose, then the covenant stated that the only permitted development that the land could then be used for was for private dwelling houses (which does not arise in this case) but specifically NOT for a school, trade or business whatsoever. We argue, therefore, that this alone will rule out your Council's proposed use as a school. Consequently, we believe this covenant is for the benefit of all Park View Rd houses. Furthermore, we believe resolutely that your Council should reject this site in favour of the others of the six suggested sites, notably, those in Acton, Greenford, and Hanwell for example. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Despite request, the Council has seen no evidence of the details of this covenant restricting use as a school. As such, there is no certainty at this point that this would prevent the delivery of an education use on part of this site. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV34 (4 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: Demography My colleague Tony Hitman FRICS, like me a retired chartered surveyor, is objecting to the positioning of a Senior School, as the Plan names their proposed High School here, in this particular location which is scheduled in the subsidiary document 'Demography, Projections and school place planning methodology'. Our objection is that the anticipated rise in the Senior School population, as set out in this publication, does not relate to a 'catchment area' that would specifically cover the Barclays land and thus to our Park View Road neighbourhood. The case can be made out for the site needed for a' Secondary School in 4.17 of the main document: S-Han 1, S- GNP2, SEal4 and S-Act 8. In other words, Barclays Bank S-EAL 4 is the least appropriate site and would almost certainly lead to bussing the pupils into our busy road at rush hour times from distant areas of Ealing where they will be living. I would like to stress that I see this as implicitly indicated in the Borough's review of the need to build more schools in the areas of greater need, which do not include our area, specifically, so our objection should not be seen as one of pure 'nimbyism'. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: The criteria and justification for selecting sites is set out in the DPD at paras 4.5-4.13 and in the Municipal Projects Evidence Note Phase 2 report. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV34 (5 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: Planning Policy Your Council acknowledges that they have a major problem, and in spite of the Plan trying to say it would be easy to overcome, the fact is that all of the Barclays land is designated as Metropolitan Open Land. The Council Plan paragraph 4.19 states "This will have to be addressed by seeking to de-designate all or part of the sites currently designated as MOL on the basis that there are special circumstances justifying the dedesignation, namely the lack of alternative policy compliant sites". We do not know the mechanism that would be used by the Council in this dedesignation of what is officially MOL land but it would fly in the face of National Planning Policy framework. This Policy provides guidance on Green Belt & MOL, both of which are protected. For MOL, "exception" is only recognized when there is no reduction in its openness and/or where there is no conflict with the purpose of the land. New schools are not typically regarded as 'exceptional' forms of development. It further provides that development within MOL is prohibited except, in quotes, circumstances or harm to "openness" or the intent of the land, in this case Sport Recreation & Leisure, all of which would apply to Barclays. School development is not automatically exceptional but "due cause must be proven to make it so". My conclusion of this aspect, coupled with the Demography point, is that there would have to be a major Planning Inquiry before the Council could take de- designation for granted and would probably have to resort to Compulsory Purchase when those who claim 'Injurious affection,' as the planners call it, could claim compensation which could be a considerable sum bearing in mind the value of the surrounding houses. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: De-designation of part of each of the MOL sites would be sought through the DPD process. The precise location of building footprint for school buildings will only be able to be established through submission, assessment and approval of development proposals through a subsequent planning application. In an attempt to ensure only minimum MOL land is de-designated and least harm to the openness of the wider site, revised (additional) wording to para 4.22 of the DPD is suggested which seeks to ensure allocation of 'the minimum site area necessary to provide the required educational facilities for these sites and cause least harm to the openness of the wider site.' This revised wording, alongside other proposed changes to policy wording/supporting text, has been agreed by the GLA and as such they have provided a statement of general conformity with the London Plan. Suggested wording at the start of Appendix 1 also clarifies how the extent of MOL de- designation will be managed. Proposed changes: Revised Policy wording in response to GLA representation (see GLA rep below) and clarification at Appendix1.

Rep: PFS/PV34 (6 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: Further points regarding loss of MOL see London {GLA) Policy In his Election Manifesto, Mayor Boris Johnson specifically lists as one of his intents, that London's green and open spaces are to be afforded full protection against development . Policy # 7.17 actually states that the openness of the land must not be lost or harmed, and planners must prioritize protection of MOL; more specifically, refusing inappropriate development, except it says "in very special circumstances". The status is therefore that MOL is protected like Green Belt. In defining appropriate development it deems that would only be for 'small scale structures', and that it upholds established or recognized usage of open space. I would add that Barclays bought the land in November 1921 and that the site has remained a sports ground to this day even though it is seldom used as such at the moment. However, those of us living near the sports club building will remember that a film company, which used the building for filming without planning permission, lost their appeal against an enforcement action by the council to cease that use and the film company withdrew. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: The need for school places is clearly set out in the DPD and supporting documents. In order to meet this established need, para 4.18 confirms the Council's preference to build on sites which are policy compliant and also justifies inclusion of some MOL sites in the shortlist. The proposed text changes seek to ensure least harm to the openness of MOL sites. This suggested revised Policy wording is supported by the GLA. Proposed changes: Suggest revised Policy wording in response to GLA representation (see GLA representation below)

Rep: PFS/PV34 (7 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: Core Strategy (2012) Policy We refer you to the importance of Policy# 5.2 which states that MOL's status is protected to provide recreation and nature conservation. Specifically naming, Fox Reservoir, St. Augustine's Playing Fields, and the Old Barclays Sports Ground which are to become a new district park. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Agreed this aspiration is promoted in Development Strategy Policy 5.2. However, a school on the site would not necessarily preclude creation of a district park on the site and could potentially enable it. Additional reference also added at para 2.9 to Policy 6.3:Green Infrastructure of Ealing’s adopted Development Strategy DPD which confirms the Council’s aim to enhance and increase access to and utilisation of the boroughs parks and MOL. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV34 (8 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: Your Council's argument for the replacement of Old Barclays Sports Ground with a school It has been argued that MOL status can be abrogated, or 'de-designated' as it is called in the Plan, by virtue of the Council's obligation to meet other Policies regarding the forecast shortfall in secondary school places, that this shortfall is acute, and there are no other sites that fulfil the terms of the Schools Policy. Thus, goes the argument that this meets the definition of "exceptional circumstances" This argument fails, in our view, since it defies the principle that defence of green and open land is the first consideration in the Policy on MOL, and that there is nothing exceptional per se in pressure to develop land for a school. Similar arguments of "pressure" can, and are, advanced by prospective users and developers. We contend that Abrogation of MOL status in deference, 'stultifies' the meaning of MOL and of green space. That the demand is from a Borough Council constitutes no "exceptional" or "very special circumstances" per se. It is to be envisaged that similar "pressure" for a new Secondary School will be felt generally, given a growing population, especially in the western part of the Borough of Ealing. I know of this situation, personally, as a Governor of Gifford Primary School in Northolt where we have just completed a major extension to accommodate the local Primary 'bulge' whose extra children will be looking for a further local Secondary school in that area shortly. Retention of MOL has been fought successfully by London for centuries, and as we know here in the 'Queen of the Suburbs, Ealing, we have a good example, London has resolutely retained its green squares, parks, and recreation grounds in recent centuries except in war. QED: Present demand is not "exceptional" ---it is the rule! Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: In recognising the need for additional school places as the justification for seeking to allocate MOL sites within this DPD , revised Policy 1 now includes specific reference to the MOL shortlisted sites , confirming that if they 'are not developed for educational use, development for other uses would not be in conformity with the London Plan.' This suggested revised Policy wording clearly links this established need for new school places to the potential de-designation of MOL sites, and confirms other uses would not be in conformity with the London Plan. Furthermore, additional text is suggested at 5.11(a) which requires a review of the Plan to justify retention of MOL sites if they have not been developed as such within the Plan period. These suggested revisions are supported by the GLA. Proposed changes: Revised Policy wording in response to GLA representation (see GLA rep below)

Rep: PFS/PV34 (9 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: Further arguments on the unsuitability of Former Barclays S Gas a school site 1) Access. The large site has no access for a school other than via a short strip of 100m on to Park View Road. The access is within 50m of a blind deceptive bend. Where I live at No. 51. despite efforts by the Council to enforce a 20 mph speed limit, vehicles continuously exceed 40 mph or more past our house which is one building short of Barclays club house where the school is designated to be built so we understand. Bunched traffic at school opening and closing times, as we already see at the top of the road with St. Augustine's parents arriving with their pupils for the school in Hill crest Road, would be a portent of things to come were the new school to be built here., Day time parking along the Park View Road frontage would obviously be a hazard and a nuisance for the residents. Importantly, on this aspect, this same argument in respect of parking, speeding and accidents on the bend was upheld by HM Inspector of Planning in 2008 in which he ruled against the commercial use of No.46 on a much smaller scale than would obtain with the numbers involved in a secondary school . Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Para 4.23 confirms this DPD is intended to help establish the principal of school use on various sites and that any new school would require a separate planning application, which would be considered on its own merits. As such, if the site is allocated, detailed access issues would need to be considered as part of a subsequent planning application. In terms of the planning history on the adjacent site, the details of this case were assessed on their own merits at that time, as would be the case for any application for a school on the Barclays site. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV34 (10 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: 2) Park View Road, following the Secretary of State's decision in 1) above, remains entirely residential. Use of this land for educational purpose would be a very substantial 'change of use', in planning terms, and would call for a major local planning inquiry where our Residents Association would make similar objections to those in this letter to an independent Planning Inspector. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV34 (11 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: 3) There is need for more diverse sports facilities in the area. This has long been sought by the surrounding community. The loss of this sports ground will be keenly felt by all local people and complaints for the loss to 'outsiders' will be considerable Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: The need to ensure increased availability of indoor and outdoor sports facilities on school sites is noted and is reflected in Para 2.4 of the DPD which cites London Plan Policy 3.18, encouraging development proposals which 'maximise the extended or multiple use of educational facilities for community and recreational use' on school premises. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV34 (12 of 12) Name: Alan Gillett On behalf of: Park Crest Residents Association Paragraph no or site ref: 4.19 Question 5: In conclusion To summarise: in 2010 the Council reviewed its strategy for Green Belt and MOL in search of evidence on which to base the above 'core' strategy. It specifically upheld as appropriate the MOL status of former Barclays' Sports ground. Given that the population growth envisaged in the Plan is no new phenomenon, the Council must have known about the various alternative sites for future demand for school buildings at the time. That cannot have changed in 5 (five) years. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: Council response: The Council are regularly monitoring demographic data which has changed over time, and through this DPD, are seeking to be proactive in identifying sites in the right places and at the right time to provide school places to meet the identified need. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV35 (1 of 1) Name: Andrew Green On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: There are currently insufficient secondary places for pupils in the North Ealing / Montpelier area. The application for the former Barclays Sports Ground site will help meet the demand. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV36 (1 of 1) Name: Tasmin Connett On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I am responding to the Schools DPD in fervent support of a new high school sited at S-EAL4 - the former Barclays Sports Ground. The north part of the borough is in desperate need of a high school. We are too far from Brentside and Drayton Manor, Ellen Wilkinson will not serve us all and Twyford CofE is inaccessible to many. I am in support of the North Twyford new high school and would put it as first choice for my child should it be sited at the Barclays Sports Ground. My daughter is in year 5 at Montpelier Primary School. We have desperate need of a new high school in time for the 2016 admission. Having lived through the primary school admissions nightmare in this part of the borough when trying to get a reception place in 2009 and again in 2012 we know how oversubscribed surrounding schools will be and are alarmed by the predicament we are in. Your map shows so clearly the lack of local high school to serve the North Ealing/Pitshanger/Montpelier area. . We have a strong community of families with primary school-aged children here. This community starts to break down when children reach high school age when families have no choice but to move away; not everyone can afford independent school. Our children need a school that is close to home, to friends and is a part of the community in which they live. Local support is really strong for the North Twyford School in this part of the borough and we are fiercely keen for it to open at the Barclays Sports Ground. Please use all your powers to secure this site for a local community high school in time for the 2016 intake - it's outrageous that it should lie wastefully fallow and derelict when the need is so great. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV37 (1 of 3) Name: Peter Gallagher On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I am writing regarding the Council’s proposal for one of the short list of sites at Acton. Namely S-AC77, Land rear of Twyford High School, . The proposal is to acquire 0.6 Hectares of land which is currently on the Twyford Avenue Sports Ground (TASG) (owned by Wasps FC). This amounts to a change of status from land that is designated as Community Open Space (COS) to one of built development. It must be pointed out that this part of the Borough (Acton) has a severe deficiency of green open space. Council response: The need for school places is clearly set out in the DPD and supporting documents. In order to meet this established need, para 4.18 confirms the Council's preference to build on sites which are policy compliant and also justifies inclusion of some MOL /open space sites in the shortlist. Site ACT7 is as a contingency site only, and the site allocation now excludes the land on playing fields, and the allocation now relates to the existing building footprint only and no loss of playing fields will occur. Proposed changes: Appendix 1 mapping change proposed to relate allocation to existing building footprint only.

Rep: PFS/PV37 (2 of 3) Name: Peter Gallagher On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: In addition there is a restrictive covenant on the land (registered under HM Land Registry Title No AGL 149508) which prevents schools being built on any part of the TASG. The said covenants are enforceable by dozen of surrounding properties whose gardens back on to the sports ground, and they are legally entitled to the benefit of the covenant. Elms Estate covenants have been upheld in the Lowery case in May 1991 and the High Court (Deputy Judge Bromley) ruled that the restrictive covenants on the Estate cannot now be validly "released" or "varied" by the former Vendors or their successor Trustees and that accordingly, the covenants remain legally enforceable by various owners and occupiers of adjoining and neighbouring plots on the Estate in accordance with the usual principles of express annexation. Any prospective variation on the Playing Field covenants would require an Application to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber). In the recent Wembley Park case on the "South Forty Farm Estate", Compensation of over £300,000 to neighbours was agreed in respect of a school building that had already been erected in a past breach of covenant at the perimeter of one of the playing fields. The covenants covering two playing fields permitted use as playing fields or in the alternative if no longer required as such, for private dwelling houses only in keeping with the existing Estate houses. The latter use was blocked by the Minister on a past occasion to protect the open space and the playing fields had remained intact. Council response: Whilst this may potentially impact upon delivery there is no certainty at this point that this would prevent delivery of education use on this site. In addition, the proposed siting is proposed to be revised to the existing pavilion building footprint (not on the playing fields) so no loss of existing playing fields would result. Proposed changes: Appendix 1 boundary change to site S-ACT7

Rep: PFS/PV37 (3 of 3) Name: Peter Gallagher On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: It is appreciated that additional school places are required for the increase in the birth rate, but a balance has to be struck between the loss of green open space or acquiring COS land or MOL for growth in school places. In the case of Acton, the decision must be to retain green open space land, and any further loss would be unacceptable in an area of severe deficiency. Please take the above comments as both a legal and planning policy objection to building on land at the rear of Twyford High School and its removal as protected Open Space on any part of the playing fields or adjoining tennis courts, etc. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV38 (1 of 1) Name: Jamie Johnson On behalf of: London Pulse Basketball Club Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: We are a growing club, 100+ players each weekend and growing. We draw players from across the borough and a central location is a good one for us. Hall hire is a huge expense for us (80% approx.) of our costs and we cannot access enough court time for the needs of our club because there are not enough courts in the borough. We also cannot access a court that is of suitable standard for National League games, because one does not currently exist in the borough. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted - need for shared indoor court provision Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV39 (1 of 1) Name: Stephanie Bottom On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: At the moment my daughter is in Year 3 at North Ealing Primary School. However, if she were to be leaving this year I have no idea where her nearest school would be. Certainly not Drayton Manor or Brentside which certainly have excellent reputations as we are apparently out of catchment. I understand that it would probably be Ellen Wilkinson but as her friends are mainly male I have a feeling that she would not be happy there. She has attended EJAMs in the past and we very much like the feel of Twyford Church of England School. I have also met the Head at interview and was very impressed by her. The school being on the Barclays site would mean that we would have a catchment school that we would be very happy to send her too and more importantly she would be happy to attend. It seems sad when I walk past the Barclay's ground how unloved and neglected it seems. It would be wonderful to see it buzzing with the chatter of children where they could build wonderful memories of their school days on this site Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV40 (1 of 6) Name: Alexandra Watson On behalf of: Acton Mums 4 Mums Paragraph no or site ref: 3.11 through to 3.16 Question 5: We are an organisation of parents with children in Acton primary schools, from Reception age through to Year 5 due to apply in 2016. We are passionate about education and our community and as such have comments on the DPD. We are concerned, as we are lead to believe by points raised in the DPD, that there is a shortage of secondary school places for our children who are moving to high school from 2016. In preparing the DPD, it occurs to us that the short listing of the sites for new secondary schools is limited to where there is a site both suitable and available. This is understandable but to optimise this restricted and inflexible situation, admissions policies for secondary schools need to be flexible. (See points in Question 7 where we suggest adopting the new straight line distance policy as introduced by Ealing Council on 24th March 2015 for Primary Schools) Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: To make the DPD sound and in our opinion, effective, it should specifically acknowledge that the site is purely chosen in available and suitable space and not chosen based on where the need is greatest. Our objective is to make any new school inclusive to the local areas. A great model has just been elected as policy for Primary schools in Ealing. Priority area catchment have been replaced with a straight line distance policy. We believe that a new admissions policy, in line with the one now being adopted for Primary Schools will be more effective in reacting to local need and thus be a fairer system Other comments: Council response: Noted. The shortlisting criteria and justifications for shortlisting sites are set out in the document at para 4.5-4.13. The admissions policy is not something within the remit of this DPD. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV40 (2 of 6) Name: Alexandra Watson On behalf of: Acton Mums 4 Mums Paragraph no or site ref: 3.11 through to 3.16 Question 5: We would also like to highlight an observation that there are a number of large building projects planned in Acton - The Oaks Development and The Friary Park Development for example which are all deemed to become residential/retail rather than schools or other community services. Therefore it is natural to conclude that all available space is being used to provide more housing which will in effect compound the pressure on the need for school places. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Anticipated housing growth has been taken into account in the demographic projections used to inform need figures. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV40 (3 of 6) Name: Alexandra Watson On behalf of: Acton Mums 4 Mums Paragraph no or site ref: 3.11 through to 3.16 Question 5: We are delighted about the proposed Third Twyford School and give our full support to theproject as outlined in the DPD on the former Barclays Sports Ground - Site Reference S-EAL4. The Twyford Academies trust has excelled in providing a high standard ofeducation to children for many years and we would welcome a third Twyford school in the Borough. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV40 (4 of 6) Name: Alexandra Watson On behalf of: Acton Mums 4 Mums Paragraph no or site ref: 3.11 through to 3.16 Question 5: It is however essential for any new school opening in Ealing to be effective in alleviating the pressure on places where the demand is greatest and therefore any new school opening should adopt a fairer catchment system than the one currently proposed for the Third School of a single nodal point at St Peters Church in Ealing. See points below which refer to the projected data for where the need us greatest for secondary places. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: The admissions policy/catchment of individual schools is not something within the remit of this DPD. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV40 (5 of 6) Name: Alexandra Watson On behalf of: Acton Mums 4 Mums Paragraph no or site ref: 3.11 through to 3.16 Question 5: Points that we have taken out of the DPD focus on the need for secondary school places in ACTON, EALING NORTH & SOUTH as stated in 3.11 of the Schools DPD publication, particularly the statement that the earliest and greatest need is in Acton, Ealing and Hanwell. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV40 (6 of 6) Name: Alexandra Watson On behalf of: Acton Mums 4 Mums Paragraph no or site ref: 3.11 through to 3.16 Question 5: Looking at the most recent data on projected future demand for secondary school places, it would appear from the Cabinet Meeting Details of 29th April - Item 09 - Update on School Expansion Programme and Projected Future Demand, Page 4 - that Acton, along with Ealing North and South will have the greatest demand in 2016 across the entire borough of Ealing. Over a third of children in the Acton area currently transfer out of borough for High School or go to the independent sector at 11. The data presented to cabinet also specifically acknowledges that the huge increase in primary school pupils in Acton means without additional provision in place, there will be a short fall of 2FE by September 2016. The same data also acknowledges that the huge increase in primary school places in Ealing North & South means that without additional provision, there will be a short fall of 5FE by September 2016. The proposed Ealing Fields Free School (4FE) has not been successful in opening in 2015 but does hope to be open for September 2016. In 3.15 of the DPD, it states that planned secondary provision is 4FE. This leaves a shortfall of 3FE for Acton and Ealing North & South combined. If Ealing Fields Free School opens then that leaves a shortfall of 1FE in North Ealing and the South Ealing shortfall will be met by the new school. Acknowledging this shows that Acton - with a shortfall of 2FE in 2016, has the greatest demand for places in the entire borough. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Table 4.1 indicates the potential Primary and Secondary FE to be provided on each allocated site. Assuming each site delivers the potential FE, any shortfall (potentially 2 FE primary and 1 FE secondary across the borough) would be hoped to be absorbed through bulge classes and filling vacancies at existing schools which have capacity. Adding new provision is likely to change the overall pattern of high school admissions borough-wide so may free up places elsewhere. The situation will however be carefully monitored to ensure we are able to provide sufficient school places to meet the demand from children living in all areas of the borough. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV41 (1 of 1) Name: James Whillis On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV42 (1 of 1) Name: Masako Trench On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV43 (1 of 1) Name: Alexandra Pidgeon On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV44 (1 of 1) Name: Mandy Cheung On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV45 (1 of 1) Name: Mohit Jain On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-HAN1 Question 5: It is unsound in regards the conclusion drawn to limit the Eversheds site to temporary/ bulge accommodation and show it as 0 FE.

There is no evidence that there is an alternate permanent provision achievable in the time frames so increasing the potential FE maintains the options of a site in an are of extreme shortage of secondary provision. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: Increasing the potential FE provision of the S-HAN1 Eversheds site increases the likelihood of the shortfall of places in the southern part of the borough being met. Other comments: I do have a concern on the limitation placed on the Evershed site. Council response: Eversheds site has been identified as a contingency site in the event that other sites in the area cannot be delivered in the timescale required to meet the identified need. The 0FE relates to 0 permanent Forms of Entry at the site but the site is to be safeguarded for education provision to allow the flexibility/temporary provision which may be required. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV46 (1 of 1) Name: Heena Lad On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: I am in support of the New North Twyford School on the site of the Barclays Ground. It would be fantastic for the local children that live on the North side of Ealing and the surrounding areas to have a local school which serves the community. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV47 (1 of 1) Name: Alice Hudson On behalf of: Twyford Academies Trust Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 & S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: The Twyford Trust has been given permission to open a further school providing additional places for Ealing students. The Trust is very supportive of the DPD process because it addresses the need to secure appropriate school sites in a timely and transparent manner. Both of the existing Trust schools are heavily over subscribed and it is clear that there is demand as well as need in Central / Acton areas . The two identified sites of Barclays and Wasps sports pitches would give ideal space for the development of a full size secondary school with a joint sixth form adjacent to Twyford CE High School. This would be cost effective in terms of building and sustainable in terms of longer term management. There is considerable support locally for this project - over 400 local parents have signed up to a lobby group and are particularly keen to see a new school opened on the Barclays site. The development at Wasps would enable the school to open its first forms of entry in 2016 when there is an immediate demand for places I am very happy to appear in person to give oral representation on behalf of the lobby group (and to bring representation from local parents if this were desirable) . Both developments (at Wasps and Barclays) would enable sites to be opened up for community sporting use also which I believe would be highly beneficial also. Council response: Support noted including opportunity for increased community use of sporting facilities associated with the new school provision at former Barclays playing field. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV48 (1 of 1) Name: Rachael Azimi On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: I think this location is an excellent and extremely appropriate choice for a new secondary school to serve the North Ealing area. The grounds are substantial and in my view easy to be adapted to serve a new secondary school. The current provision in North Ealing is woefully short and this would be the ideal location and go significant ways to serve the children of the primary schools in this area who are currently facing very limited options. There is land which can be used as excellent outdoor sports facilities. The current disused Barclay's sports ground and empty building is desolate and not being used for any purpose - it detracts from the neighbour in its current purpose frankly. Redeveloping it into a school will enhance the area on my levels - not only atheistically but also as a positive focal point for the local community, serving the children of the borough and providing them with their educational needs. Currently there are such excellent primary schools in this area (Montpelier, North Ealing and St Gregory's for example) but no natural secondary school and this must be addressed as soon as possible. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV49 (1 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I have lived in Castlebar Road, Ealing for 52 years this April. During that time for the last 28 years, I have been campaigning for new and extended Conservation Areas. In 1990, I presented a "Petition of 5,000" to the then Town Planning Committee Chairman, Cllr. Norman Pointing, in Woodville Road. At that time, we were opposing the demolition of two grand Victorian houses at 34 & 36 Woodville Road dating from 1885 and 1886, both built for Edward Wood's "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing" by local builder, Alfred Bailey. The LBE Chief Planning Officer, Mr John Birch, submitted our Petition of 5,000 entitled "DON'T DEMOLISH OUR HERITAGE - IT TOOK 100 YEARS TO BUILD IT!" to the Government of the day, who introduced new measures to prevent premature/speculative demolitions and at the same time, extra clauses were added to the Ealing UDP designed to do the same. In 1991, the whole of Woodville Road was made into the "Mount Park Conservation Area" following our campaigning. With adjacent Victorian buildings in other roads, this Conservation Area was later extended and also other new Conservation Areas were introduced and/or extended protecting other Victorian buildings in Central Ealing such as in Hamilton Road and Corfton Road. Edward Wood’s mother was Mary Hamilton and the village of Corfton is near Culmington, Shropshire (also near Madeley, Craven Arms). Please also see an article from the Evening Standard “Homes & Property” Supplement in 1999 following the “Epsom & Ewell Rugby Football Playing Fields” case when the open land was protected in the High Court in May 1998. The following comments are in response to your proposed new DPD relating to schools etc. Please take these into account even though I have not used the suggested form that you kindly provided. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV49 (2 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 1. Your newspaper LBE Public Notice dated 20th February 2015, does not make it clear that half a dozen or so playing fields are to be built on. For instance, anyone living in Park View Road, immediately adjacent to the former Barclays Bank Sports Ground Title AGL86818, would not, I suspect, have a clue that this document about schools was connected to the proposed de-designation of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). There are no schools in Park View Road (prohibited under the system of covenants on the Hanger Hill Section of the “Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing”), so anyone who happens to spot the Public Notice and seeing that it was connected to schools in the Borough, would never associate that with the development of the long- established playing fields property described at HM Land Registry as “Sports Ground on the East side of Park View Road, London” (Freehold). I would imagine that the same applies to all the other playing fields that you are proposing to develop i.e. off Twyford Avenue and elsewhere. Council response: The DPD Publication version clearly sets out the Councils proposals, including potential de-designation of MOL, within the text and associated maps. Despite request to Prof Gillett, the Council has not had sight of the covenant referred to. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV49 (3 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 2. In respect to open spaces generally and Metropolitan Open Land, as far as I know the playing field in Ealing lying between Park View Road and Hanger Lane (A406 North Circular Road), has been established for a very long time and was already MOL at the time of the 1986 Ealing Borough Plan. After 30 years or more of MOL designation, it would be rather a shock to re-write history, especially as over the years the Council has sought to protect such open land saying for instance as set out below, overleaf and on page 3: Council response: The UDP has been superseded by adopted Local Plan documents, notably the Core Strategy in April 2012 and Development Management DPD in Dec 2013. The Local Plan documents still recognise the important function of MOL. However, in recognising the need for additional school places as the justification for seeking to allocate MOL sites within this DPD , revised Policy 1 now includes specific reference to the MOL shortlisted sites , confirming that if they 'are not developed for educational use, development for other uses would not be in conformity with the London Plan.' This suggested revised Policy wording clearly links this established need for new school places to the potential de-designation of MOL sites, by confirming that other uses would not be in conformity with the London Plan. Furthermore, additional text is suggested at 5.11(a) which requires a review of the Plan to justify retention of MOL sites if they have not been developed for educational use within the Plan period. These suggested revisions are supported by the GLA. Proposed changes: No change other than Policy 1 additional wording and additional text at 5.11(a) referred to in Council response.

Rep: PFS/PV49 (4 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 2 (a) “no development to be permitted on land used or still capable of being used for private or public recreation, and leisure purposed other than small scale and sensitively designed buildings which support the management or enjoyment of those facilities. Inappropriate development will not be allowed merely because the land has become derelict;” [Ealing Plan Chapter 6, Open Land – Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land, page 6.4 UDP Amendments 6/92] Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV49 (5 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 2 (b) “Open land is possibly the most precious possession of a London borough such as Ealing- while, at the same time, making sure it can be enjoyed by the population – is a vital duty….. The Major Open Areas comprise open land of structural significance to the Borough and will therefore be safeguarded. This system is designed to provide useful and attractive breaks in a largely built-up area and, in particular, serves as a boundary between different localities in the Borough and emphasises the separate identity of these areas. To prevent the deterioration of Major Open Areas through neglect, misuse or simply lack of funds for maintenance and appropriate utilisation, they will be allocated suitable Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land functions which meet local needs or wider metropolitan objectives…. Metropolitan Open Land is any strategic open land within the urban area which is significant to people in the whole or part of London… the presumption against development in the Green Belt applies equally to MOL" [Adopted Ealing UDP Chapter 6, Open Land – Open Land and Outdoor Recreation, pages 6.1 & 6.2 UDP 1/98] Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV49 (6 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 2. (c) “Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land and locally open space, including Green Corridors and other wildlife habitats should be protected…The Council will: (ii) Encourage the positive use and management of individual parts of the Major Open Areas that respects their open nature, character and biodiversity role, to meet the need for open-air leisure, sport and recreation; (iii) Permit only appropriate and essential development required for open-air recreation, nature conservation, nature education, agriculture and forestry, which will conserve and enhance the Major Open Area… Any development acceptable in Major Open Areas should: (I) Be of a small scale, and a height and design sympathetic to its setting in a Major Open Area; (ii) Not damage the landscape openness and natural character of the area; and (iii) provide environmental improvements on adjacent or other appropriate land… The Council will resist development in MOAs and seek to improve access. No development is likely to be permitted other than limited, small scale and sensitively designed buildings or works needed to support the management or enjoyment of recreation and leisure facilities. Inappropriate development will not be permitted merely because the land has become unused or derelict…” [Ealing’s Adopted 2004/DCLG Direction 2007 Plan for the Environment. Chapter 3, Green Space and the Natural Environment, pages 39 - 41] Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV49 (7 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 2. (d) The DCGL Direction 2007 Borough Plan shows the former Barclays Bank Sports Ground and, to the north, the “Astroturf” open area (hockey/tennis) used by St Augustine’s Girls School, designated Metropolitan Open Land (MOL). Likewise, Hanger Hill Park itself is also MOL. Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV49 (8 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 2. (e) “Open spaces provide a respite from the hustle and bustle of city life, which is beneficial to health and can instil a sense of calm into the lives of people visiting them. Quiet or relative quiet can be key in determining the tranquillity of an open space. Preserving this quiet through the identification and designation of quiet areas or zones is an important step in ensuring that residents enjoy this important amenity on their doorsteps. As Ealing becomes more densely developed, the need for open space will inevitably grow and green space will become an ever more valuable resource. The need to protect established sites, enhance the quality and value of existing sites, including improving access to this network and identifying new green spaces will be essential. The Ealing Green Space Strategy (2012-2022) provides a framework through which the Council and its partners can prioritise investment and actions in order to address deficiency in the provision and quality of open space in the borough. This Development Strategy recognises the constraints on creating new open space, both physical and budgetary. Safeguarding and improving existing open space will therefore often take priority over the creation of new areas. Plans for building much needed housing and other development will not mean building on green space….” “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: ... (c) Land along A406: • Hanger Hill – development of a district park, encompassing the public park, former Fox Reservoir and playing fields (St Augustine's and Barclays Sports Ground); management of the remainder of the land for nature conservation, and tree planting alongside North Circular Road. [L B Ealing’s Development (Core) Strategy, Adopted 3rd April 2012, pages 38 - 40 including map.] Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV49 (9 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: All of this open land was part of Edward Wood’s “Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing”. Mr Wood’s sister, Miss Mary Wood, lived on the corner of Hanger Lane and Hillcrest Road where the St Augustine’s Priory was later built and, indeed, the restrictive covenants imposed on the Metropolitan Water Board were for the benefit of and annexed to the land owned by Mary Wood. The former property surveyor of Barclays Bank Ltd, Mr David Turner, personally told me that the Bank was aware of the restrictive covenants burdening the playing fields land and that these were enforceable by owners and occupiers of the “Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing”. Council response: See above. Despite request, the Council has not seen further detail of the original covenants. There is therefore no certainty at this point that this would prevent education use being delivered on part of this site. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV49 (10 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments:

There was a covenant case in 1989 in the High Court to prevent the demolition of the private dwelling house at 52 Park View Road, Ealing for a Block of 8 Flats + 15 car- parking spaces (officer Mr Farid Kassim). No. 52 remains protected to this day following the action commenced by neighbours at 46 & 48/50 Park View Road against the would-be developer. Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV49 (11 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: The Playing Fields off Twyford Avenue and other surrounding roads on the “Elms Estate, Ealing & Acton” (the main part of which is registered under Title AGL149508) are burdened with restrictive covenants and have been designated as “Community Open Space” (COS) for many years upheld by the Planning Inspector at a previous Public Inquiry, which I attended, as did Gerald Moran, who referred to the Open Spaces Act 1906. Mr Moran was thanked by both the Council and The Inspector for his legal input on the Act which the Council’s representative had been unaware of as it related to two Public Open Spaces on the Goldsmith’s Acton Estate, for which Mr Moran used to be the conveyancer. Mrs Edith Oakes also attended and presented photographic evidence that we had gathered including the open views of the playing fields land off Twyford Avenue as seen from many vantage points all around that land. The “Elms Estate, Ealing & Acton” covenants were upheld by the High Court in May 1991 following a three-year court case involving three hearings at the High Court, the Lands Tribunal and again at the High Court (trial). Deputy Judge Bromley granted an Injunction against a Housing Association (EFHA Ltd) preventing institutional use of the land at 18 Freeland Road and ordered them to pay the Plaintiffs’ costs of some £45,000. Just before the Lands Tribunal Hearing, the developers, EFHA had paid £15,000 to the Estate’s present Trustees to obtain a "Deed of Variation" to modify (in as far as they had the power to do so) the covenant pertaining to No.18, but this "Deed of Variation" was held to be ineffective as against any of the 114 Objectors wishing to enforce the covenants. The case is referred to in an article by Mira Bar- Hillel that appeared in the in the "Chartered Surveyor Weekly" dated 20th June 1991 (appendix). Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV49 (12 of 12) Name: Victor Mishiku On behalf of: The Covenant Movement Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: In the recent Wembley Park “South Forty Farm Estate” restrictive covenant case in the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), an award of £302,500-00 Compensation was agreed between the parties (later subject to adjustment re. some of the legal costs) for a past breach of covenant on the use of part of the land as a School. The breach had in fact already occurred and the "South Forty Farm Estate" covenant was modified post facto by the Upper Tribunal to allow a school building at the edge of the open land shown on the far right in the panoramic photo taken by me (attached) to remain but otherwise, the covenant was to stay in place for all the rest of the two large Playing Field areas. The Council (London Borough of Brent) was not the owner of the land (they used to be) but bankrolled the School for the Compensation payable and Legal Costs incurred. The costs came to a total of some £500,000 in addition to the Compensation payable to the Objectors - all met by LB. Brent, although a further claim for costs of about £30,000 odd due to the main legal Objectors' representative is still to be finalised with the Objectors’ costs consultant and the Council’s solicitors. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV50 (1 of 1) Name: Sushma Kara On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV51 (1 of 1) Name: Hootan Sherafat On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV52 (1 of 1) Name: Harinder Mander On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: In support of the DPD: 1 - A lack of alternative policy compliant sites exist in vicinity 2 - Funding for School agreed by EFA 3 - Partial de-designation of Barclays existing building footprint should occur 4 - No need for wholesale residential development of land 5 - Barclays bank sports club site not used by public and need for secondary school places acute Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV53 (1 of 7) Name: Daniel Hazan On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: 1. Lack of consultation Ealing Council has not informed residents of these proposals. The proposed abrogation of Metropolitan Open Land status of the former Barclays Bank Sports Ground and the proposed construction of a 6FE will be the largest development in the area for over 50 years and will forever change the character of the neighbourhood. The majority of Park View Road’s residents are unaware of these proposals. In the interests of fairness (and democratic process), Ealing Council must undertake an adequate consultation to inform residents of the proposals and to hear the views of residents and others affected on their proposal. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: As previous Other comments: Please accept this rep as my objection to the Ealing Council's proposal to de- designate the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) status of the former Barclays Bank Sports Ground, Park View Road, W5 and the construction of a 6FE school on the site. I agree with the objections set out by Professor Gillett, Tony Hitman and the Park Crest Residents Association. Council response: This DPD seeks to establish the principle of education use on various sites, and includes proposed policies to assist in achieving the identified need, and consultation has been undertaken in accordance with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Any subsequent planning application in relation to detailed proposals on any of the sites would be subject to a separate planning process, as outlined in para 4.23 and at Appendix 1 beneath each site map. This process would include its own consultation and detailed assessment. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV53 (2 of 7) Name: Daniel Hazan On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: 2. Contravention of Planning Policy and protection of Metropolitan Open Land Status The redevelopment of the former Barclays Sports Ground (BSG) as a new secondary school is in direct conflict with the planning policies and allocations contained within the London and Ealing Development Plans. The Proposals Map shows that the former Barclays Bank Sports Ground (BSG) (Page 24 S-EAL4) is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and Community Open Space (COS). The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that MOL is protected and ‘exceptional’ development is only permitted where there is no resulting harm to its openness; or conflict with the purposes of including land within it. New schools are not regarded as ‘exceptional’ forms of development. The proposals fail to meet the ‘exceptional circumstances’ test for development within the MOL and would cause material harm to the openness of the MOL. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: as above Council response: The established need for school places is clearly set out in the DPD and supporting documents. In order to meet this established need, para 4.18 confirms the Council's preference to build on sites which are policy compliant and also justifies inclusion of some MOL /open space sites in the shortlist. The shortlisting process, criteria and justifications for excluding/shortlisting sites are set out in the DPD documents including paras 4.5 - 4.13 of the DPD and in the Municipal Projects DPD Evidence note Phase 2. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV53 (3 of 7) Name: Daniel Hazan On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: London Plan Policy 7.17 sets out that the Mayor of London strongly supports the current extent of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and its protection from development having an adverse impact on the openness of MOL. The policy confirms that when making planning decisions the strongest protection should be given to London’s MOL and inappropriate development refused, giving the same level of protection as in the Green Belt. The supporting text highlights that appropriate development should be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses and minimise any adverse impact on openness of MOL. In addition, Core Strategy (2012) Policy 5.2 indicates that MOL land should be protected and is intended to provide opportunities for recreation and nature conservatioN Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: as above Council response: See above Proposed changes: Additional wording to Policy 1 and supporting text at para 4.22 and new para 5.11(a) which respectively confirm that uses other than education uses would not be justified; ensure allocation of minimum site area necessary to provide the education facilities is allocated on MOL/playing fields; and introduce time-limited de-designation from MOL in the event that provision is no longer required. This suggested wording has been agreed by the GLA.

Rep: PFS/PV53 (4 of 7) Name: Daniel Hazan On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Accordingly, the Core Strategy allocates BSG, together with the former Fox Reservoir and St Augustine’s Playing Fields, for development as a new district park. The de-designation of all, or part of the site designated as MOL for allocation as a new 6 FE Secondary School would therefore be in conflict with London Plan Policy 7.17 and Core Strategy Policy 5.2. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: as above Council response: See above Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV53 (5 of 7) Name: Daniel Hazan On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: In 2010, Ealing Council undertook a Borough wide review of Green Belt/MOL as part of the evidence base for the Core Strategy. This document assessed the appropriateness of BSG’s MOL designation and concluded that there was no requirement for removal. This provides further justification for the retention of the MOL designation and that the loss of public amenity space is a material consideration which does not outweigh the need to provide new Secondary school facilities in this location. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: as above Council response: See above. It is acknowledged that a balance has to be struck between providing for the established educational need in the borough and protection of MOL. As such, the proposed policy wording has been strengthened to minimise the extent of any MOL de-designated, clarify that uses other than education use would not be in conformity with the London Plan and review the de-designation of sites from MOL if they are not delivered as education use within the plan period. Proposed changes: No change other than policy wording referred to in Council's response.

Rep: PFS/PV53 (6 of 7) Name: Daniel Hazan On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Furthermore, an analysis of the impact on the highway and residential amenity should be conducted which will also provide a compelling case against de-designation. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: as above Council response: The potential impact on openness of the MOL includes consideration of views from outside of the site, including those of surrounding occupiers and passers by. Detailed assessment of the potential impact upon the highway network and amenity would only be able to be assessed in response to any subsequent planning application submitted at the site, which would be subject to separate consultation and consideration. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV53 (7 of 7) Name: Daniel Hazan On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: 3. Alternative Sites Ealing Council has not provided sufficient evidence to support the requirement for a new 6FE school located at the location of the former Barclays Bank Sports Ground. There are alternative ‘policy compliant’ sites within the borough, with better access and higher PTAL ratings, that are located nearer to the areas of Ealing where additional school places may be required in the future. Examples are those other sites listed in the DPD document, as well as land behind Gurnell Leisure centre, vacant areas of the Park Royal Industrial Estate, Twyford Abbey, Trailfinders Sports Ground, North Acton Playing Fields, Fox's Reservoir, amongst numerous others. Ealing Council should undertake a thorough search for alternative ‘policy compliant’ sites within the Borough, which do not require the loss of important MOL status and will ensure that the new school is built close to the area where these additional school places are actually required. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: Other comments: as above Council response: The shortlisting process, criteria and justifications for excluding/shortlisting sites are set out in the DPD documents at paras 4.5 - 4.13 of the DPD and in the Municipal Projects DPD Evidence note Phase 2 . Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV54 (1 of 1) Name: Mr & Mrs Gandhi On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: We live in Park View Road and are emailing you as we strongly object to the Council's proposals for development of the former Sports Field of Barclays Bank for the site of a new Borough High School. We agree with Prof. Gillett, Tony Hitman and Daniel Hazan of Park View Road and support with their objections. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV55 (1 of 5) Name: Robert Stansfield On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: (a) Not Legally Compliant [1] Lack of Consultation As at early March 2015 few if any local residents were aware of this DPD to execute the largest development in over 50 years in the area around the Old Barclays Sports Ground, Park View Rd W5. Although an undated sample letter & Notice are posted on website, none such was received by anyone I know. This showed that similar plans were afoot in 2013 or earlier. Had residents been aware of the implications for new development, unsuitable in my opinion, people would have responded earlier. Announcement in late Feb 2015 of a deadline of April 3rd, combined with the obscurity of the preceding plans, stultifies the concept of “consultation”. This lack alone reveals the process as flawed at law amounting to maladministration. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: [1] Postpone the deadline for approval of the DPD from Apr 3rd by 3 months; to make room for proper consultation and review by the many affected people who are presently under-informed. In particular until the power to abrogate the Barclays site’s MOL status has been established or not; and the cost of compulsory purchase is known and the public advised of this cost to the public purse. [2] For the reasons stated above, it is impossible at such short notice for me or other unconsulted residents to verify the facts and evaluate the conclusions drawn in the DPD. I believe it right that I should demand full facts and proper opportunity to evaluate and respond to them. However, I believe there are many issues, and I refer again to those set out as above, by the Park crest Residents’ Assoc, which I presently believe sound. Other comments: Council response: Consultation has been undertaken on this and previous rounds of consultation in accordance with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV55 (2 of 5) Name: Robert Stansfield On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: [2] The DPD itself admits that the Barclays SG is not “policy compliant”; and that it conflicts with established MOL status. At this point it is therefore not “legally complaint”, and the public should not approve it “on the fly”. Since abrogation of MOL, research of covenants, change of policies, will take time, deadline Apr 3rd is needless, unconsulted rush. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: The need for school places is clearly set out in the DPD and supporting documents. In order to meet this established need, para 4.18 confirms the Council's preference to build on sites which are policy compliant and also justifies inclusion of some MOL /open space sites in the shortlist. See above re: consultation. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV55 (3 of 5) Name: Robert Stansfield On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: [3] This Representation Form’s demands that respondent members of the public must submit “revised wording” implies they have the combined education, time and will to re-perform all of the Council’s wording on each area objected to. And objections blanket large segments of the DPD. This demand is facile and impossible, even given much time and expense. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: The 6 week consultation period is consistent with the consultation period for other Local Plan documents and in accordance with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV55 (4 of 5) Name: Robert Stansfield On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: [4] The public are not to be expected to redo the research and analysis already done and paid for with public money, in order to accept or reject LBE’s findings in any informed manner. The Council should draw attention to and expose openly the results of its data collection, and its inferences therefrom. Then LBE must give the public some months to review these and their reactions. Note they are only exposed in summary form on the website, without the basic facts on which they rely. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: The Council has published the full extent of evidence base and background documents used to inform the proposed shortlist of sites included in the DPD. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV55 (5 of 5) Name: Robert Stansfield On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: (b) Sound Objections based on several related facts have been formulated by the Parkcrest Residents’ Assoc, and submitted to you under separate cover (q.v.) by its Chairman, Prof A Gillet. I need not reiterate them here. Here I present my full support for these objections. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (d) Consistent with national policy Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV56 (1 of 1) Name: Akiko Sasaki On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: I would like to support the legal compliance and soundness of the DPD. My 8 years old son (year3) is currently studying at Montpelier primary school in Ealing. The school is fantastic and I am very pleased with our primary school. However, I am aware of the significant luck of state secondary school in our area. Many of my friends are moving because of this situation. The number of children are increasing year by year and we desperately need a new school specially Montpelier primary school catchment. If we don’t have a new school I might need to end up moving or send my child to a private school or a grammar school (which is very far in distance) or just accept any secondary school available in the borough of Ealing.(Southall, Northolt etc...) As I am not Christian, my son will not be able to attend faith school. As you may know, Montpelier primary school is an outstanding school with very high achievement. The children study hard and make huge progress. If they have a new school to carry on locally, the school will be obviously very high standard and it will be a brilliant school. I also think it is not fair that our children need to think they have no choice of going to their next school. Because of the above reasons I would strongly agreed to build a new secondary school in very near future. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV57 (1 of 1) Name: Karen McCready On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: The building of a new school by Twyford on the former Barclays ground is not only legally compliant but necessary to solve the schools crisis in this northern part of the borough. In this highly residential area, families are unable to find a nearby high school with places for their children and we all know the situation is worsening each year. A new High School serving these families is therefore crucial- the council has a legal duty to provide education for all its young people. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV58 (1 of 1) Name: Suzanne Whillis On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: It’s of the upmost importance that more state school premises are provided within this area and unforgivable that such a large, ideal space for such demands would not be utilised to fulfil this purpose. I entirely believe that this process is sound and legally complaint for this particular site (S-EAL4). Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV59 (1 of 1) Name: Aled Davies On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-HAN1 Question 5: Site S-HAN1 is big enough to house a 4FE secondary school. We desperately need a school in the area and this is only one of two sites that could house a secondary school for local children. In listing this site as 0FE you are dramatically reducing the chances of local children being able to access a local school. Question 6: (b) Justified Question 7: To make the DPD sound, site S-HAN 1 should change from being listed as a 0FE site to one that has potential for a 4FE secondary school. Other comments: Council response: Eversheds site has been identified as a contingency site in the event that other sites in the area cannot be delivered in the timescale required to meet the identified need. The 0FE relates to 0 permanent Forms of Entry at the site but the site is to be safeguarded for education provision to allow the flexibility/temporary provision which may be required. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV60 (1 of 1) Name: Paul Miller On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: I wish to support the DPD. This area of Ealing really needs a new secondary school, and planning for a school on the former Barclays site represents a great opportunity to ensure that the site is used for something of real benefit to the community. Allowing some development on a small proportion of the site, while maintaining the rest as open land that would have a recreational use (through the school and possibly for the wider community) seems something of a "no-brainer". It is "sound" in any normal sense of the word (and in the sense defined in the notes to this response, page 5 below). Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV61 (1 of 1) Name: Judith Mortell On behalf of: Ealing Fields Academy Trust Paragraph no or site ref: S-HAN1 Question 5: Site S-HAN1 is a 4 acre site and could easily house a 4 FE school. Listing the site as having potential for a 0FE secondary school lacks flexibility and does not capitalise upon the fullopportunity the site offers. Question 6: (b) Justified Question 7: To make the DPD sound site S-HAN 1 should be listed as a site that has potential for a 4FEsecondary school. Other comments: Council response: Eversheds site has been identified as a contingency site in the event that other sites in the area cannot be delivered in the timescale required to meet the identified need. The 0FE relates to 0 permanent Forms of Entry at the site but the site is to be safeguarded for education provision to allow the flexibility/temporary provision which may be required. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV62 (1 of 1) Name: Lisa Jain On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-Han1 Question 5: Given the chronic shortage of schools in South Ealing it seems inflexible to restrict a site that could accommodate an entire school to playing fields only, especially when potential schools are struggling to find a site to use & in certain cases have had to delay their opening. Question 6: (b) Justified Question 7: Allow the site to be open for buildings as well as playing fields. Other comments: Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV63 (1 of 1) Name: Rodrigo Ostik On behalf of: London Pulse Basketball Club Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: London Pulse Basketball Club are in favour of Twyford Trust opening a new school. In particular, London Pulse is in a huge need of a proper home court and therefore is looking to partner with the school to enable this club to grow. Currently the club has grown to 140 members, of which more than 100 children attend each week. The club is struggling to compete in competitions due to lack of adequate facilities and funding to cover court costs. This project would help the growth of the club to help children all over Ealing and serve the community and encourage sport. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I am a resident in Ealing and I have been for around 20years. Also I am a volunteer coach for the London Pulse Basketball Club. Therefore I fully support the plans for this development at the specified site. We at the London Pulse Basketball Club are a growing club. We have grown since the club was started over 2 years ago to around now 140 members. We are limited massively in our growth by the fact the club does not have a proper home court that is suitable for National League standards. This means we can not submit our teams to play at the level that they should and also means we can not accommodate more children. In particular our younger age groups such as U12s are the age groups growing so much that we need more court time to allow further training sessions etc. By partnering with Twyford we hope that they will be allowed to go ahead and build their new school with its new sport facilities enabling us to continue I grow and give sporting and basketball opportunities to children. Council response: Support noted. The DPD also promotes increased community access to sporting facilities provided as part of any school development. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV64 (1 of 1) Name: Shelia Flexen On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV65 (1 of 1) Name: Abid Hussain On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Having looked at the details I am in support of using the old Barclays sports ground for the proposed academy. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV66 (1 of 1) Name: Sudhen Bhayani On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I write this email to strongly agree with contents of the letter that has been sent to you by Prof. Gillet, Tony Hitman and Daniel Hazan of Park View Road in regard to the above. I am a resident in Park View Road. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV67 (1 of 10) Name: Anthony Lewis On behalf of: Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Panel Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: The former Barclays Sports Ground on Park View Road (site S-EAL4) immediately adjoins the Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area, and is an important part of the setting of the Conservation Area - please see the attached pdf file "Ealing Cricket Ground CA - Map" on which the boundaries of the Conservation Area are marked in green. The Conservation Area Panel would normally seek the preservation of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and object to any proposal to build over any area of MOL. However, in exceptional circumstances and where there is a proven need, we are prepared to consider the de-designation of MOL provided the area so de-designated is kept to a minimum and - in this case - the footprint of the proposed school buildings is limited as far as possible to the current footprint of the former Barclays club house and the existing hardstanding surrounding the club house. In this respect, we note that the former club house has not been used for its original purpose for some fifteen years and is currently so dilapidated that it is probably beyond repair. The whole site has been fenced off for a long time and is a local eyesore. In principle, therefore, and in view of the exceptional circumstances, the Conservation Area Panel does not object to this proposal to locate a new secondary school building on the north-west corner of site S-EAL4, subject to the provisos which we mention and the guarantees that we seek in this representation which will, in our view, make the publication version of the Planning for Schools DPD both sound and legally compliant. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: For the Planning for Schools DPD to be sound and legally compliant, we consider that the following information needs to be added to the publication version of the document: 1. The DPD needs to specify that it is only the area within the dotted red line on the plan on page 24 for which de-designation of MOL will be sought. 2. The DPD needs to make it explicit that the area of MOL to be de-designated is the absolute minimum consistent with the proposed use for the land, and that the only area to be de-designated is the part of the site which will be built over or for which hardstanding is required (such as for hard surface PE). 3. The DPD needs to confirm that the Council will take over the whole of the site within the solid red line on the plan on page 24. 4. The DPD needs to state whether the current level of protection of the land outside the dotted red line but within the solid red line will continue (i.e. as MOL and COS). 5. The DPD needs to state what the land outside the dotted red line but within the solid red line will be used for. 6. The DPD should state that the land within the solid red line which is not needed for the proposed school will become available to the public and be made accessible to local schools and the local community for sports and recreational purposes. 7. The DPD should reassure the local community that the land within the solid red line which is not needed for the proposed school will continue to be protected as MOL and that, in addition, the Council will change its designation from Community Open Space (COS) to Public Open Space (POS). 8. The DPD needs to state what measures the Council will take to assess, and mitigate, the impact of increased road traffic - generated by a new school - on the surrounding area which is, at present, a quiet residential area. I confirm that the comments in this representation have been prepared and approved by both members of the Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Panel. Other comments: Council response: Comments noted. In response to numbered points: 1. The area of land for which de- designation is sought is clarified on the revised plan forming part of the Council's submission documents. 2. Additional text is proposed at para 4.22 to ensure the proposed boundaries of sites allocated for school development on MOL will reflect the minimum site area necessary to provide the required educational facilities. 3. The Council will not be landowner but the DPD is explicit in confirming that sporting facilities provided as part of any school development should be made available for increased community use. 4. Land outside the area allocated for the school will remain and MOL and COS, including any playing fields associated with the school. 5. This DPD relates to school site allocation only. Other sporting facilities or pitches which may be provided as part of a school development but are consistent with the MOL designation may be provided outside of the dotted red line/area designated for the school. 6.See response to 3 above. 7.See response to 4 above. Any change from COS to POS designation in relation to associated recreational facilities would need to be considered once the extent of these are known - potentially through details of any planning application for school development on the site. 8.Potential traffic impacts would be assessed as part of any future planning application. Proposed changes: Changes proposed to wording of Policy 1 and other supporting text as in response to GLA representation.

Rep: PFS/PV67 (2 of 10) Name: Anthony Lewis On behalf of: Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Panel Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: We consider that the proposal is currently unsound because, while the Planning for Schools DPD quotes the site area as covering 9.85 hectares (i.e. the whole of the sports ground bordered with a solid red line on the plan on page 24), it only specifies in detail the Council's intentions for the smaller area within the dotted red line. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: The purpose of the DPD is to identify sites for use as schools. The Council has clarified the site areas proposed for use as schools including, on sites where required, the extent of land proposed to be de-designated. Detailed proposals for all sites would need to be separately assessed through subsequent planning applications. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV67 (3 of 10) Name: Anthony Lewis On behalf of: Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Panel Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: In addition, while paragraph 4.22 on page 15 of the DPD explains that "the extent of the de-designation sought within each of these sites is indicated on the individual site maps included at Appendix 1", the site map for S-EAL4 does not make it clear whether it is only the area within the dotted red line for which de-designation of MOL is sought. It appears, from the reference in DPD Policy 1 to Table 4.1, that the Council intends to take over the whole of the sports ground - and not just the area within the dotted red line - though this needs to be made clear. Question 6: as above Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: The extent of land proposed for school use is clarified on the mapping at Appendix 1 of the DPD. The precise footprint of a new or extended building can only however be established through the subsequent planning process, once detailed development proposals have been submitted, fully assessed and approved. The floorspace for education use on all sites will be established with reference to up-to-date guidance (currently BB103 June 2014); on MOL/playing fields it should reflect the minimum site area necessary to provide the required educational facilities and cause the least harm to the openness of the wider site. On these sites, the finally approved footprint and access will determine the precise area of land to be de-designated from MOL. Proposed changes: Appendix 1 mapping and explanatory text

Rep: PFS/PV67 (4 of 10) Name: Anthony Lewis On behalf of: Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Panel Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: However, the Planning for Schools DPD does not adequately specify the Council's intentions for the rest of the site, i.e. the area outside the dotted red line but within the solid red line on the plan on page 24. DPD Policy 1 states that "the sites allocated for school use in Table 4.1 will be safeguarded for school use. Development for non-school uses will only be considered … if other uses are already envisaged as part of a mixed proposal incorporating a school, or [if] it can be demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements and is no longer required for school use". We consider that this policy statement does not provide adequate protection in respect of this large site, as it is unclear whether the whole site (9.85 hectares) will be needed for school use Question 6: as above Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: The area of land to be de-designated will be the minimum area necessary to provide the required educational facilities. Land outside of this area could provide associated recreational facilities for the school which are MOL compliant and as such would not require de-designation. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV67 (5 of 10) Name: Anthony Lewis On behalf of: Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Panel Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: It is also not clear whether the area outside the dotted red line but within the solid red line would retain both MOL and Community Open Space (COS) designations as at present. If, as it appears, the Council intends to take over the whole of the area within the solid red line, we consider that the Planning for Schools DPD is not sound or legally compliant because it does not specify the purposes for which this land would be used or the protection that it would be afforded in future Question 6: as above Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV67 (6 of 10) Name: Anthony Lewis On behalf of: Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Panel Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: We consider that, for the Planning for Schools DPD to be considered sound and legally compliant, the proposed use(s) of all the land within the solid red line should be specified in some detail, and the level of statutory protection should be set out clearly. Question 6: as above Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV67 (7 of 10) Name: Anthony Lewis On behalf of: Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Panel Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: To encourage community support for this proposal, and to counterbalance the loss of part of the current area of MOL (for the proposed school and hardstanding), we recommend that the Planning for Schools DPD specifies that any land within the solid red line which is not needed for the proposed school should become available to the public and be made accessible to local schools and the local community for sports and recreational purposes. Question 6: as above Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Support noted for wider community use and access. This is consistent with the Council's aims. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV67 (8 of 10) Name: Anthony Lewis On behalf of: Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Panel Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: We also recommend that, in addition to retaining the MOL designation of the area outside the dotted red line but within the solid red line, the Council should change the Community Open Space (COS) designation to Public Open Space (POS). Question 6: as above Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above. Any change in designation of the area outside the site allocated for school use would be subject to a separate process. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV67 (9 of 10) Name: Anthony Lewis On behalf of: Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Panel Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: We consider that the recommendations in the preceding two paragraphs are necessary to reassure the community that the Council will continue to protect this important area of MOL and open space. Question 6: as above Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV67 (10 of 10) Name: Anthony Lewis On behalf of: Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area Panel Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: We also consider the Planning for Schools DPD to be unsound because there is no mention of the impact on the local neighbourhood of the increased volume of road traffic likely to be generated by a new school or of plans to mitigate the impact of such traffic, despite the reference in DPD Policy 2 to there being "no adverse cumulative effect … on the well-being of the local community". The surrounding area is, at present, a quiet residential area. Question 6: as above Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See response above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV68 (1 of 1) Name: Susan Aljibouri On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Please find enclosed my support for the proposal to consider the former Barclays site in North Ealing fit for purpose for School development. It is crucial for us in the local area to have a secondary school placed there due to the lack of Secondary schools in the location. My son is currently 134th in one of the Ealing Borough's secondary schools we applied to this year and this situation in untenable. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV69 (1 of 1) Name: Karina Cryer On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I fully support a new Twyford school at the Barclays sports ground site. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV70 (1 of 1) Name: Joanne Austin On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: I am fully in support of the proposed new Twyford secondary school and believe the former Barclays sports ground to be the most appropriate site Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (1 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: Table 4.1 Question 5: Background Context This representation is submitted by Parkview International London Ltd ("Parkview") on behalf of Leisure and Entertainment Ltd ("L&E") who are the owners of the Park View Road Sports Club site, Ealing. Both L&E and Parkview are members of the Parkview Group of Companies owned by the Hwang family based in Hong Kong. The site was owned by Barclays Bank from 1908 until 2000 and used as their sports and social club for use only by their employees. In 2000 Barclays sold the site to a private owner and L&E then acquired the Park View Road Sports Club site from that owner in 2008. The site has been closed since Barclays disposed of the site in 2000. Whilst owned by Barclays the site was used only as a private sports club and no members of the general public have ever had access to the former club house buildings or sports grounds and there is no public open space on the site The site is approximately 9 hectares (22 acres) and is bounded to the east by Hanger Lane, to the west by Park View Road, to the north by residential flats, a school and house; to the south by residential. The entire site - including the club house buildings - are within Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) which has been designated within adopted development plans since 1986. In addition to the MOL designation, the site has been allocated within the Development (or Core) Strategy of 2012 as "Community Open Space" and as part of the "Hanger Hill District Park." Given that the Parkview Group have owned the site since 2008 and Barclays have no legal interest in the site, Parkview will refer to the site as "Park View Road Sports Club, Ealing." Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: Representation to Table 4.1 - Short List of Sites - S-EAL4 "Former Barclays Sports Ground, Park View Road, Ealing". In relation to the proposed allocation of the secondary school at the Park View Road Sports Club site, it is considered that the plan is not effective because: 1. The secondary school cannot be delivered to meet the identified need for a secondary school without Parkview's willingness to provide the required land for the school. 2. The use of the sports field by the secondary school and also by members of the local community as publicly accessible open space use - including use of the site as a District Park - cannot be delivered without Parkview's willingness to provide the required land. The only way to deliver expediently the secondary school and provision of other public benefits - including public use of the former sports grounds and the community facilities within the school outside school hours - and therefore for the plan to be effective - is by a) the proposed Masterplan delivering a long term and sustainable future for the site, both in terms of providing the secondary school and also optimising the public use of the MOL for outdoor sports activities and/or community open space/district park with potential for enhanced nature conservation and green corridor functions; and b) the school and other public benefits being delivered as an integral component of a Masterplan for all of the Park View Road Sports Club site. The Masterplan will form the basis of a planning application for the secondary school, public open space and residential development. The application will be subject to public consultation. Other comments: Council response: The purpose of this DPD is to identify and designate sites (and broad site areas within some of the sites) for schools and associated facilities. In response to the representation from the GLA, DPD wording has been strengthened to confirm that the extent of de-designation sought within each of the sites currently designated as MOL/COS will be the minimum area necessary to provide the educational facilities for these sites. In recognising the need for additional school places as the justification for seeking to allocate MOL sites within this DPD , revised Policy 1 now includes specific reference to the MOL shortlisted sites , confirming that if they 'are not developed for educational use, development for other uses would not be in conformity with the London Plan.' This suggested revised Policy wording clearly links this established need for new school places to the potential de-designation of MOL sites, by confirming that other uses would not be in conformity with the London Plan. Furthermore, additional text is suggested at 5.11(a) which requires a review of the Plan to justify retention of MOL sites if they have not been developed for educational use within the Plan period. Aspirations in relation to any other uses on the wider sites are not relevant to the consideration of this DPD. Proposed changes: Suggested additional text to policy wording and supporting text as noted.

Rep: PFS/PV71 (2 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: Table 4.1 Question 5: Parkview support the allocation of the Park View Road Sports Club site, Ealing for a new secondary school. Parkview recognise that such an allocation is inconsistent with the site's MOL designation. Parkview also accept that the identified need for the secondary school serving the Ealing area means that the Parkview Road Sports and Social Club site is the only possible location to meet that need. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (3 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: Table 4.1 Question 5: However, the allocation of part of the site for a school fundamentally alters the rationale for the MOL designation for the site as whole, therefore requiring a masterplan to provide a long term and sustainable future for the site in terms of redefining the MOL, and realising an optimised use of the MOL which would remain in terms of a new sports, open space or ecological function. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above. The proposed boundary to be de-designated will reflect the minimum site area necessary to provide a school. Proposed changes: No change.

Rep: PFS/PV71 (4 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: Table 4.1 Question 5: Accordingly, Parkview's support for the proposed school allocation is subject to the following conditions being met: 1. The school is delivered as an integral part of an agreed Masterplan for all of the Park View Road Sports Club site. Their proposed Masterplan approach to the Park View Road Sports Club Site is required to deliver the secondary school and associated facilities. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (5 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: Table 4.1 Question 5: 2.The Masterplan will identify the proposed location for the secondary school, public open space and residential development and also set parameters relating to the maximum amount of floorspace and footprint for the school, associated facilities for the school and the residential use and associated design codes, including maximum heights and means of access to the site, as well as landscaping. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: The purpose of this DPD is school site allocation. Aspirations in relation to any other uses on the wider sites are not relevant to the consideration of this DPD. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (6 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: Table 4.1 Question 5: 3. The Masterplanning process will form part of a "Statement of Common Ground" to be agreed by Parkview and the London Borough of Ealing to support the delivery of the secondary school and associated facilities at the Park View Road Sports Club site, to be presented at the Examination in Public, demonstrating that the secondary school will be expediently delivered if based upon the proposed Masterplan. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: The purpose of the Planning for Schools DPD is to allocate school sites to meet an identified need. The Council support the delivery of a secondary school and associated facilities for the benefit of wider community use on this site. Any aspiration in relation to other uses on this or other sites shortlisted are not part of the consideration of this DPD. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (7 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: Table 4.1 Question 5: 4.In the event that part of the Park View Road Sports Club site is allocated in the adopted "Planning for Schools" development plan document for the secondary school, and that part of the site is also de-designated as Metropolitan Open Land, the Masterplan will then form part of a planning application covering the whole site. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (8 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: Table 4.1 Question 5: The application will demonstrate that the delivery of the school and other public benefits constitute the "very special circumstances" that justify development within the MOL designation. The application will be subject to extensive public consultation with the local community, statutory undertakers, as well as other stakeholders. The Masterplan will form part of further representations to be made by Parkview at the Examination in Public. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (9 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.18-4.21 Question 5: Background Context - as previous Given that the Parkview Group have owned the site since 2008 and Barclays have no legal interest in the site, Parkview will refer to the site as "Park View Road Sports Club, Ealing." Parkview support the allocation of the Park View Road Sports Club site, Ealing for a new secondary school. Parkview recognise that such an allocation is inconsistent with the site's MOL designation. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: Representation to paragraphs 4.18- 4.21 In relation to the proposed allocation of the secondary school at the Park View Road Sports Club site, it is considered that the plan is not effective because: 1. The secondary school cannot be delivered to meet the identified need for a secondaryschool without Parkview's willingness to provide the required land for the school. 2. The use of the sports field by the secondary school and also by members of the localcommunity as publicly accessible open space use - including use of the site as a DistrictPark - cannot be delivered without Parkview's willingness to provide the required land. The only way to deliver expediently the secondary school and provision of other publicbenefits - including public use of the former sports grounds and the community facilitieswithin the school outside school hours - and therefore for the plan to be effective - is by a) the proposed Masterplan delivering a long term and sustainable future for the site, both interms of providing the secondary school and also optimising the public use of the MOL foroutdoor sports activities and/or community open space/district park with potential forenhanced nature conservation and green corridor functions; and b) the school and other public benefits being delivered as an integral component of a Masterplan for all of the Park View Road Sports Club site. The Masterplan will form the basisof a planning application for the secondary school, public open space and residentialdevelopment. The application will be subject to public consultation. Other comments: Council response: The support for delivery of a school and associated facilities for wider community use on the site is welcomed and is in accordance with the proposed designation and policies within the DPD. All sites will require planning applications to be submitted as part of a subsequent process and will need to be assessed on their own merits. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (10 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.18-4.21 Question 5: However, the allocation of part of the site for a school fundamentally alters the rationale for the MOL designation for the site as whole, therefore requiring a masterplan to provide a long term and sustainable future for the site in terms of redefining the MOL, and realising an optimised use of the MOL which would remain in terms of a new sports, open space or ecological function. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (11 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.18-4.21 Question 5: Accordingly, Parkview's support for the proposed school allocation is subject to the following conditions being met: 1. The school is delivered as an integral part of an agreed Masterplan for all of the Park View Road Sports Club site. Their proposed Masterplan approach to the Park View Road Sports Club Site is required to deliver the secondary school and associated facilities. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (12 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.18-4.21 Question 5: 2.The Masterplan will identify the proposed location for the secondary school, public open space and residential development and also set parameters relating to the maximum amount of floors pace and footprint for the school, associated facilities for the school and the residential use and associated design codes, including maximum heights and means of access to the site, as well as landscaping. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (13 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.18-4.21 Question 5: 3. The Masterplanning process will form part of a "Statement of Common Ground" to be agreed by Parkview and the London Borough of Ealing to support the delivery of the secondary school and associated facilities at the Park View Road Sports Club site, to be presented at the Examination in Public, demonstrating that the secondary school will be expediently delivered if based upon the proposed Masterplan. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (14 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.18-4.21 Question 5: 4.In the event that part of the Park View Road Sports Club site is allocated in the adopted "Planning for Schools" development plan document for the secondary school, and that part of the site is also de-designated as Metropolitan Open Land, the Masterplan will then form part of a planning application covering the whole site. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (15 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.18-4.21 Question 5: The application will demonstrate that the delivery of the school and other public benefits constitute the "very special circumstances" that justify development within the MOL designation. The application will be subject to extensive public consultation with the local community, statutory undertakers, as well as other stakeholders. The Masterplan will form part of further representations be made by Parkview at the Examination in Public. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (16 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.22-4.23 Question 5: Background Context - as previous Given that the Parkview Group have owned the site since 2008 and Barclays have no legal interest in the site, Parkview will refer to the site as "Park View Road Sports Club, Ealing." Parkview support the allocation of the Park View Road Sports Club site, Ealing for a new secondary school. Parkview recognise that such an allocation is inconsistent with the site's MOL designation. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: In relation to the proposed allocation of the secondary school at the Park View Road Sports Club site, it is considered that the plan is not effective because: 1. The secondary school cannot be delivered to meet the identified need for a secondary school without Parkview's willingness to provide the required land for the school. 2. The use of the sports field by the secondary school and also by members of the local community as publicly accessible open space use- including use of the site as a District Park- cannot be delivered without Parkview's willingness to provide the required land. The only way to deliver expediently the secondary school and provision of other public benefits- including public use of the former sports grounds and the community facilities within the school outside school hours - and therefore for the plan to be effective - is by a) the proposed Masterplan delivering a long term and sustainable future for the site, both in terms of providing the secondary school and also optimising the public use of the MOL for outdoor sports activities and/or community open space/district park with potential for enhanced nature conservation and green corridor functions; and b) the school and other public benefits being delivered as an integral component of a Masterplan for all of the Park View Road Sports Club site. The Masterplan will form the basis of a planning application for the secondary school, public open space and residential development. The application will be subject to public consultation. Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (17 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.22-4.23 Question 5: However, the allocation of part of the site for a school fundamentally alters the rationale for the MOL designation for the site as whole, therefore requiring a masterplan to provide a long term and sustainable future for the site in terms of redefining the MOL, and realising an optimised use of the MOL which would remain in terms of a new sports, open space or ecological function. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (18 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.22-4.23 Question 5: Accordingly, Parkview's support for the proposed school allocation is subject to the following conditions being met: 1. The school is delivered as an integral part of an agreed Masterplan for all of the Park View Road Sports Club site. Their proposed Masterplan approach to the Park View Road Sports Club Site is required to deliver the secondary school and associated facilities. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (19 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.22-4.23 Question 5: 2.The Masterplan will identify the proposed location for the secondary school, public open space and residential development and also set parameters relating to the maximum amount of floorspace and footprint for the school, associated facilities for the school and the residential use and associated design codes, including maximum heights and means of access to the site, as well as landscaping. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (20 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.22-4.23 Question 5: 3. The Masterplanning process will form part of a "Statement of Common Ground" to be agreed by Parkview and the London Borough of Ealing to support the delivery of the secondary school and associated facilities at the Park View Road Sports Club site, to be presented at the Examination in Public, demonstrating that the secondary school will be expediently delivered if based upon the proposed Masterplan. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (21 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.22-4.23 Question 5: 4.In the event that part of the Park View Road Sports Club site is allocated in the adopted "Planning for Schools" development plan document for the secondary school, and that part of the site is also de-designated as Metropolitan Open Land, the Masterplan will then form part of a planning application covering the whole site. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (22 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 4.22-4.23 Question 5: The application will demonstrate that the delivery of the school and other public benefits constitute the "very special circumstances" that justify development within the MOL designation. The application will be subject to extensive public consultation with the local community, statutory undertakers, as well as other stakeholders. The Masterplan will form part of further representations be made by Parkview at the Examination in Public. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (23 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 1 Question 5: Background context - as previous Parkview support the allocation of part of the Park View Road Sports Club site, Ealing, for a new secondary school as identified in Table 4.1 (Short list of sites). Parkview also support proposed policy DPD 1 "Safeguarding of allocated sites for school use" · Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: DPD Policy.1 proposed safeguarding of allocated sites for school use at the Park View Road Sports Club site is considered not to be effective because: 1. The secondary school cannot be delivered to meet the identified need for a secondary school without Parkview's willingness to provide the required land for the school. 2. The sports field for use by the secondary school and also by members of the local community as publicly accessible open space use - including use of the site as a District Park- cannot be delivered without Parkview's willingness to provide the required land. The only way to deliver expediently the secondary school and provision of other public benefits- including public to use the former sports grounds and the community facilities within the school outside school hours - is by: a) the proposed master plan delivering a long term and sustainable future for the site, both in terms of providing the secondary school and also optimising the public use of the MOL for open door sports activities and/or community open space/district park with potential for an enhanced ecological/green chain function; and b) the school and other public benefits being delivered as an integral component of a Masterplan for all of the Park View Road Sports Club site. The Masterplan will form the basis of a planning application for the secondary school, public open space and residential development. The application will be subject to public consultation. Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (24 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 1 Question 5: Nevertheless, Parkview's support for DPD Policy 1 in relation to the Park View Road Sports Club site is subject to the following conditions being met: 1. The school is delivered as an integral part of an agreed masterplan for all of the Park View Road Sports club site. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (25 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 1 Question 5: 2. In relation to part a) of the policy, Parkview support the incorporation of "other uses" envisaged as part of a mixed use proposal incorporating a school. These "other uses" will be identified in the masterplan which includes the provision of residential development and public open space. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: In response to the representation from the GLA, additional wording to Policy 1 is however proposed which confirms if various sites (including S-EAL4) are not developed for educational use, development for other uses would not be justified and not in conformity with the London Plan. Proposed changes: Additional text to Policy 1.

Rep: PFS/PV71 (26 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 1 Question 5: 3. A "statement of common ground" to be presented at the Examination in Public between the London Borough of Ealing and Parkview demonstrating that the secondary school will be expediently delivered based upon the masterplan. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: The support for delivery of a school and associated facilities for wider community use on the site is welcomed and is in accordance with the proposed designation and policies within the DPD. All sites will require planning applications to be submitted as part of a subsequent process and will need to be assessed on their own merits. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (27 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 1 Question 5: 4.In the event that part of the Park View Road Sports Club site is allocated in the adopted "Planning for Schools" Development Plan Document for the secondary school, and that part of the site is also de-designated as Metropolitan Open Land, the masterplan will then form part of a planning application covering the whole site. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (28 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 1 Question 5: The application will demonstrate that given the allocation of the secondary school at the Park View Road Sports Club site within the adopted "Planning for Schools" Development Planning Document, there are "very special circumstances" which support the proposed masterplan given within the planning application. The planning application will be subject to extensive public consultation with the local community, statutory undertakers, as well as other stakeholders. The masterplan will form part of further representations be made by Parkview at the Examination in Public. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (29 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 2 Question 5: Background context - as previous

Parkview support the allocation of part of the Park View Road Sports Club site, Ealing for a new secondary school as identified in Table 4.1 (Short list of sites). Parkview also support proposed policy DPD 1 "Safeguarding of allocated sites for school use" Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: To be justified and sound the first paragraph of Policy DPD 2 needs to be amended to read as: "School development proposals on existing school sites and sites allocated in Table 4 (Short list of sites) will be supported within the adopted "Planning for Schools Development Plan Document." The plan's allocations may also form part of mixed use developments as part of a Masterplan in order to deliver the allocation of the school through a planning application." The safeguarded allocated school site at Park View Road Sports Club can only be justified and effective by: a) the proposed Masterplan delivers a long term and sustainable future for the site, both in terms of providing the secondary school and also optimising the public use of the MOL for open door sports activities and /or community open space/district park with potential for an enhanced ecological/green chain function; and b) the school and other public benefits being an integral component of a Masterplan for all of the Park View Road Sports Club site. The Masterplan will form the basis of a planning application for the secondary school, public open space and residential development. The application will be subject to public consultation. Other comments: Council response: The support for delivery of a school and associated facilities for wider community use on the site is welcomed and is in accordance with the proposed designation and policies within the DPD. All sites will require planning applications to be submitted as part of a subsequent process and will need to be assessed on their own merits. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (30 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 2 Question 5: Parkview consider that draft DPD Policy 2 fails to recognise that a school allocation at the Park View Road Sports Club Site would not "comply with the development plan for the area" given that the Park View Road Sports Club site, Ealing, is all allocated as MOL in the extant development plan. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (31 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 2 Question 5: Nevertheless, Parkview consider that there are "very special circumstances" at the Park View Road Sports Club site justify development within the MOL in accordance with the Masterplan. Therefore Parkview's support for DPD Policy 2 in relation to the Park View Road Sports Club site is subject to the following conditions being met: 1. The school proposal is delivered as an integral part of an agreed Masterplan for all of the Park View Road Sports club site. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (32 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 2 Question 5: 2. Acknowledgement that this allocation may not comply with the development plan in some respects. However point I) and ii) of the policy should be weighed in the balance. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Noted. Any subsequent planning application will need to balance all planning considerations. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (33 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 2 Question 5: 3. A "statement of common ground" to be presented at the Examination in Public between the London Borough of Ealing and Parkview demonstrating that the secondary school will be expediently delivered based upon the Masterplan. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (34 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 2 Question 5: 4.In the event that part of the Park View Road Sports Club site is allocated in the adopted "Planning for Schools" Development Plan Document for the secondary school, and that part of the site is also de-designated as Metropolitan Open Land, the Masterplan will then form part of a planning application covering the whole site. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (35 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.2 DPD Policy 2 Question 5: The application will demonstrate that given the allocation of the secondary school at the Park View Road Sports Club site within the adopted "Planning for Schools" Development Planning Document, there are "very special circumstances" which support the application's proposed masterplan and therefore justify development within the MOL. The planning application will be subject to extensive public consultation with the local community, statutory undertakers, as well as other stakeholders. The masterplan will form part of further representations be made by Parkview at the Examination in Public. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (36 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.6 DPD Policy 3 Question 5: Background context - as previous Parkview support Policy 3 - presumption in favour of sustainable development. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: This policy as drafted is considered not to be justified or effective because the development plan for the area designates all of the Park View Road Sports Club site as MOL. The allocation of part of the site for a school fundamentally alters the rationale for the MOL designation for the site, as whole, therefore requiring a masterplan to provide a long term and sustainable future for the site both in terms of refining the MOL and realising an optimised use of the MOL which would remain in terms of a new sports, open space or ecological function. The proposed secondary school cannot be delivered as part of the proposed allocation at the site unless Parkview are willing to provide the land for the school. Parkview will only provide the land for the school and the other public benefits if this forms part of the masterplan for the entire site which includes residential. The majority of the site is likely to remain as Metropolitan Open and therefore "very special circumstances" need to be demonstrated to deliver the school through the masterplan. To be justified and effective there needs to be an additional paragraph of the policy to be amended to read as: "Planning applications that accord with the policies in this Local Plan (and where relevant with policies of other neighbourhood plans) and also where "very special circumstances" outweigh non policy compliant designations, enabling the delivery of the allocated school, will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise." Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (37 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: 5.6 DPD Policy 3 Question 5: However, there will be circumstances - as with the allocation of the secondary school as at the Park View Road Sports Club site as given per Table 4.1 and Site S-EAL4- that in order to deliver the allocated secondary school and publically accessible public open space within the MOL, demonstration of "very special circumstances" that outweigh non development plan policy compliant sites, also represents sustainable development. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (38 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Background context - as previous

Given that the Parkview Group have owned the site since 2008 and Barclays have no legal interest in the site, Parkview will refer to the site as "Park View Road Sports Club, Ealing." Parkview support the allocation of the Park View Road Sports Club site, Ealing for a new secondary school as given Appendix 1. Parkview recognise that such an allocation is inconsistent with the site's MOL designation. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: In order to make allocation of the short listed site S-EAL justified and effective the following paragraph needs to be amended in the Appendix. "The hatched red line indicates the approximate minimum footprint of building, access and hard surface PE. Additional land would be required for soft PE and informal/social areas. lt is shown to scale but not necessarily in the precise location, which will be subject to ground conditions and planning requirements." Parkview consider that this statement is neither justified or effective because the details of the secondary school requirements - including its footprint, the precise location, scale and massing and external appearance have yet to be determined and this will form part of the masterplan. Parkview do not consider that the allocated secondary school should be located within the footprint of the existing club house buildings as seems to be intimated by the hatched red line to the plan. However, the precise location is still to be determined by the masterplan. The secondary school cannot be delivered at the site unless Parkview are willing to provide the land required for the school and associated playing fields. Parkview will only provide the land for the school and the other public benefits, including public use of the MOL if this forms part of the masterplan for the entire site which also includes residential use .. The majority of the site is likely to still remain as Metropolitan Open Land despite the school being allocated in the school development plan document and therefore "very special circumstances" will need to be demonstrated to deliver the school as shown in the masterplan. To be justified and effective the two paragraphs need to be amended as follows: "The Planning for Schools DPD allocates a secondary school at the Park View Road Sports Club site. The hatched red area indicates the area of land within which the secondary school building footprint will be located. The precise location of the secondary school, its footprint and design details will be form part of an approved masterplan for the comprehensive development of the site for a secondary school, public open space and residential development. The masterplan will be subject to a separate planning application, including public consultation for formal assessment." Other comments: Council response: In response to representation from the GLA, on relevant sites within the proposed shortlist, further consideration has been given to the location and footprint of land to be de-designated for education use. Minimum footprints have been identified with reference to published guidance detailing space standards for schools. The purpose of this DPD is to allocate sites for schools. Any aspiration for other uses on the site are not part of the consideration of this DPD. Proposed changes: The proposed location of the school is shown in the mapping at Appendix 1 of the DPD. Justifications for any changes are included in the Schedule of Minor and Technical Changes (SD4)

Rep: PFS/PV71 (39 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: However, the allocation of part of the site for a school fundamentally alters the rationale for the MOL designation for the site as whole, therefore requiring a masterplan to provide a long term and sustainable future for the site in terms of redefining the MOL, and realising a optimised use of the MOL which would remain in terms of a new sports, open space or ecological function. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (40 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Accordingly, Parkview's support for the proposed school allocation as given in Appendix 1 for site S-EAL 4 subject to the following conditions being met: 1. The school is delivered as an integral part of an agreed "Masterplan" for all of the Park View Road Sports Club site. The Masterplan approach is required to deliver the secondary school and associated facilities at the Park View Road Sports Club site. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change Rep: PFS/PV71 (41 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: 2.The Masterplan will identify the proposed location for the secondary school, public open space and residential development and also set parameters relating to the maximum amount floorspace and footprint for the school, associated facilities for the school and the residential use and associated design codes, including maximum heights and means of access to the site, as well landscaping. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (42 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: 3. The Masterplan will form part of a "Statement of Common Ground" to be agreed by Parkview and the London Borough of Ealing to support the delivery of the secondary school and associated facilities at the Park View Road Sports Club site, to be presented at the Examination in Public, demonstrating that the secondary school will be expediently delivered if based upon the proposed masterplan. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (43 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: 4.In the event that part of the Park View Road Sports Club site is allocated in the adopted "Planning for Schools" development plan document for the secondary school, and that part of the site is also de-designated as Metropolitan Open Land, the Masterplan will then form part of a planning application covering the whole site. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV71 (44 of 44) Name: Mike Straw CgMs (part of RPS) On behalf of: Andrew Biggs (Parkview International London Ltd) Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: The application will demonstrate that the delivery of the school and other public benefits constitute the "very special circumstances" that justify development within the MOL designation. The application will be subject to extensive public consultation with the local community, statutory undertakers, as well as other stakeholders. The Masterplan will form part of the oral representation be made by Parkview at the Examination in Public. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: See above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV72 (1 of 10) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: General Question 5: We have reviewed the consultation documents in the light of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which requires, as one of its core planning principles, that heritage assets be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future generations. Having reviewed the DPD and supporting documents we are concerned that the historic environment is not appropriately represented, and that the policies require amendment to ensure that the developments proposed are sustainable. We also note that the background documents are lacking in terms of consideration of the historic environment. This results, in our view, in the plan being unsound in terms of its justification and effectiveness. Our comments are set out below. Notwithstanding this, we consider that amendments could be made to rectify this concern, and we would be pleased to discuss changes with you. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted. The Council have forwarded suggested revised wording changes to Heritage England which provide clarification, promote consideration of the historic environment and assist users of the DPD to manage change sensitively. Proposed changes: New para 2.12 and additional wording in supporting text of Policy 2 to add document referencing, highlight site constraints and include consideration of the historic environment.

Rep: PFS/PV72 (2 of 10) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: General Question 5: General comments The provision of new schools and school places can take the form of alterations and extensions to existing school buildings and the development of wholly new school sites. In each case there are potential implications for the historic environment that should be taken into account. With respect to alterations and extensions to existing schools, we advise that where the buildings are of historic interest (whether nationally designated listed buildings, buildings which contribute to conservation areas or locally valued heritage assets) that great care should be taken to ensure that their historic significance is conserved and enhanced. This matter is highlighted in our guidance publication Refurbishing Historic School Buildings is available as an English Heritage archived document on our website1. We recommend that this guidance is referenced within the DPD to assist users of the plan to manage such change sensitively. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above - additional references suggested.

Rep: PFS/PV72 (3 of 10) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: General Question 5: Where new school sites are developed we would expect that the historic environment is considered in terms of site choice and suitability, and that the policy parameters include reference to any heritage assets, either within the site, or adjoining. This includes consideration of the below ground archaeological resource. The Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service should be contacted for information on the sensitivity of individual site allocations, and should be advised of all proposals within Archaeological Priority Areas. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted. Further to subsequent consultation and response from GLAAS ,additional wording is suggested beneath relevant site maps at Appendix 1 to confirm site constraints including archaeological areas, and if further archaeological investigation would be required. Proposed changes: Appendix 1 additional text to confirm archaeological areas and further investigation as required on relevant sites.

Rep: PFS/PV72 (4 of 10) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2 Question 5: Policy 1 Safeguarding of Allocated Sites for School Use This policy refers to the short list of safeguarded sites, details of which are available in Table 4.1 and Appendix 1. We have the following observations: The Primary school sites at S-ACT2 Acton Park Depot and S-HAN4 42 Lower Boston Road lie wholly within conservation areas and new provision should conserve and enhance the character and appearance of these areas. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Noted. The Council have forwarded suggested revised wording changes to Heritage England which provide clarification, promote consideration of the historic environment and assist users of the DPD to manage change sensitively. Proposed changes: New para 2.12 and additional wording in supporting text of Policy 2 to add document referencing, highlight site constraints and include consideration of the historic environment.

Rep: PFS/PV72 (5 of 10) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Secondary school site S-EAL4 Former Barclays Sports adjoins three conservation areas and development should take account of their settings. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: Other comments: Council response: As above Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV72 (6 of 10) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT7 Question 5: Secondary school site S-ACT-7 Land rear of Twyford High School – this site adjoins the Creffield conservation area to the south. Although the provision is temporary, this should be a consideration in the disposition and design of the provision. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: Other comments: Council response: As above Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV72 (7 of 10) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT8 Question 5: Secondary school site S-ACT8 Acton College, Gunnersbury Lane – this is a backland location between two conservation areas. The development should respect the settings of both of these areas in the form and nature of development. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: Other comments: Council response: As above Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV72 (8 of 10) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL6 Question 5: Secondary school site S-EAL6 Former King Fayed Academy – the existing school building on this site is a listed building. We are very concerned if the plan policy is based upon the principle of demolition of this building and therefore we consider that this policy is unsound and lacking in justification. We note that the background document (Phase 2 evidence note: Municipal Projects, Feb 2015) refers to potential conversion. There is a need to state clearly in the plan policy that harm to the heritage asset will be avoided. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: Other comments: Council response: As above Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV72 (9 of 10) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: In view of the designations identified above we recommend that consideration of the historic environment is clearly added as a consideration within the plan for each site allocation. Historic England also notes with concern that the Sustainability Appraisal fails to provide any assessment of the historic environment considerations that apply to these sites, other than noting the listed status of the (S- EAL6). This requires amendment. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: Other comments: Council response: As above Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV72 (10 of 10) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: Policy 2 Question 5: Policy 2: School Development Proposals In providing for the development of new school buildings Historic England requests that the potential impact on the viability of any existing historic school buildings for continued beneficial use should be taken into consideration. Paragraph 126 of the NPPF requires that local plans set out a positive strategy for the historic environment ‘that takes into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation’. We recommend that the supporting text to this policy includes a note that the provision of new school capacity will take account of any potential consequences for existing school premises, including the need to ensure their viable use. Policy 2 refers in part ii) to the need to avoid significant adverse impacts on the DPD sustainability objectives and we recommend that this part of the policy is re-worded, for clarity, to read ‘ … well-being of the local community including any significant adverse impacts on the local environment and heritage assets, and other local plan sustainability objectives.’ This point is needed to ensure the effectiveness of the plan policy. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: Other comments: Council response: As above Proposed changes: Policy 2 wording - suggested change to wording as per Heritage England request.

Rep: PFS/PV73 (1 of 1) Name: Naomi Breen On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV74 (1 of 1) Name: Anne Fowles On behalf of: London Pulse Basketball Club Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: I support the legal compliance and soundness of the DPD because it will meet the needs of the population of the Borough of Ealing in the provision of further high school places in a part of the borough that is at present time short of high school places. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Proposed changes:

Rep: PFS/PV75 (1 of 1) Name: Stacey Reyes On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: My preference for school locations is the former Barclays Sports Ground - Site reference S-EAL4. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV76 (1 of 1) Name: Sophie Harrowes On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: S-EAL4 - Former Barclays Sports Ground, Park View Road - It seems to be an ideal space for the school in a part of the borough which is clearly in need of a co- educational state secondary. I commend this proposal to you and hope that progress can be made with the development as soon as possible. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV77 (1 of 1) Name: Davinder Mander On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: In support of the DPD: 1 - Lack of school secondary places in vicinity 2 - Funding for School agreed by EFA 3 - Partial de-designation of existing building of Barclays bank, footprint should occur 4 - No other wholesale redevelopment of land needed 5 - Land not used by public. Need for secondary school places 6 - Site is highly relevant to local demographic of primary school Montpellier 7 - No active sport or recreation on site Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV78 (1 of 1) Name: Guy Hutchinson On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV79 (1 of 8) Name: Jo Winters On behalf of: Ealing Civic Society Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2 Question 5: Where the loss of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) or community open space is proposed we would not normally agree to the use of such land for development purposes except in the most exceptional circumstances. Overall, we are not reassured, so far, that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent unacceptable development on the MOL and /or community open spaces proposed.

DPD Policy 1 states that "the sites allocated for school use in Table 4.1 will be safeguarded for school use. Development for non-school uses will only be considered … if other uses are already envisaged as part of a mixed proposal incorporating a school, or it can be demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements and is no longer required for school use". We consider that this policy statement, as it stands, does not provide adequate protection for the remainder of each of the sites.

Finally, the DPD needs to make reference to the impact on the local neighbourhood of the increased volume of road traffic likely to be generated by new schools and include plans to mitigate the impact of such traffic.

Acton Park Depot, The Vale, Acton - No comment Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: The DPD needs to ensure there are sufficient safeguards in place to prevent unacceptable development on the MOL and community open space proposed thus providing adequate protection for the remainder of each of the sites. In addition, the DPD needs to make reference to the impact on the local neighbourhood of the increased volume of road traffic likely to be generated by new schools and include plans to mitigate the impact of such traffic. Other comments: Council response: Proposed revised wording to Policy 1, additional text at para 4.22 and new para 5.11 confirm respectively that uses other than education uses would not be justified; ensure minimum site area to provide the education facilities is allocated; and introduce time-limited de-designation from MOL if sites are not developed and evidence indicates they are no longer required. Revised wording is also suggested at para 4.23 which now confirms the consideration of all impacts, including transport impacts, will be subject to further detailed assessment at the subsequent planning application stage, and that mitigation of impacts would be secured through the development details, planning conditions and/or Legal Agreement. Full text from adopted Development Strategy Policy 6.2: Social Infrastructure also to be inserted at para 2.6 to confirm the Council’s intention to promote public transport improvements in relation to schools. Proposed changes: Proposed changes to policy and supporting text as noted.

Rep: PFS/PV79 (2 of 8) Name: Jo Winters On behalf of: Ealing Civic Society Paragraph no or site ref: S-HAN4 Question 5: Where the loss of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) or community open space is proposed we would not normally agree to the use of such land for development purposes except in the most exceptional circumstances. Overall, we are not reassured, so far, that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent unacceptable development on the MOL and /or community open spaces proposed.

DPD Policy 1 states that "the sites allocated for school use in Table 4.1 will be safeguarded for school use. Development for non-school uses will only be considered … if other uses are already envisaged as part of a mixed proposal incorporating a school, or it can be demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements and is no longer required for school use". We consider that this policy statement, as it stands, does not provide adequate protection for the remainder of each of the sites.

Finally, the DPD needs to make reference to the impact on the local neighbourhood of the increased volume of road traffic likely to be generated by new schools and include plans to mitigate the impact of such traffic.

42 Lower Boston Road, Hanwell - No comment Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: As above Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV79 (3 of 8) Name: Jo Winters On behalf of: Ealing Civic Society Paragraph no or site ref: S-HAN1 Question 5: Where the loss of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) or community open space is proposed we would not normally agree to the use of such land for development purposes except in the most exceptional circumstances. Overall, we are not reassured, so far, that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent unacceptable development on the MOL and /or community open spaces proposed.

DPD Policy 1 states that "the sites allocated for school use in Table 4.1 will be safeguarded for school use. Development for non-school uses will only be considered … if other uses are already envisaged as part of a mixed proposal incorporating a school, or it can be demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements and is no longer required for school use". We consider that this policy statement, as it stands, does not provide adequate protection for the remainder of each of the sites.

Finally, the DPD needs to make reference to the impact on the local neighbourhood of the increased volume of road traffic likely to be generated by new schools and include plans to mitigate the impact of such traffic.

Eversheds Sports Ground, Hanwell - We are concerned that development of this small part of the site could set a precedent of the remainder of the site which would be highly undesirable unless sufficiently strong safeguards are put in place to prevent this. We would also wish any facilities in the school and remaining open land to be for wider community use. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Proposed changes:

Rep: PFS/PV79 (4 of 8) Name: Jo Winters On behalf of: Ealing Civic Society Paragraph no or site ref: S-GNP2 Question 5: Where the loss of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) or community open space is proposed we would not normally agree to the use of such land for development purposes except in the most exceptional circumstances. Overall, we are not reassured, so far, that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent unacceptable development on the MOL and /or community open spaces proposed.

DPD Policy 1 states that "the sites allocated for school use in Table 4.1 will be safeguarded for school use. Development for non-school uses will only be considered … if other uses are already envisaged as part of a mixed proposal incorporating a school, or it can be demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements and is no longer required for school use". We consider that this policy statement, as it stands, does not provide adequate protection for the remainder of each of the sites.

Finally, the DPD needs to make reference to the impact on the local neighbourhood of the increased volume of road traffic likely to be generated by new schools and include plans to mitigate the impact of such traffic.

Land adjacent to Greenford High School, Ruislip Road, Greenford - No comment Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: Proposed changes:

Rep: PFS/PV79 (5 of 8) Name: Jo Winters On behalf of: Ealing Civic Society Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Where the loss of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) or community open space is proposed we would not normally agree to the use of such land for development purposes except in the most exceptional circumstances. Overall, we are not reassured, so far, that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent unacceptable development on the MOL and /or community open spaces proposed.

DPD Policy 1 states that "the sites allocated for school use in Table 4.1 will be safeguarded for school use. Development for non-school uses will only be considered … if other uses are already envisaged as part of a mixed proposal incorporating a school, or it can be demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements and is no longer required for school use". We consider that this policy statement, as it stands, does not provide adequate protection for the remainder of each of the sites.

Finally, the DPD needs to make reference to the impact on the local neighbourhood of the increased volume of road traffic likely to be generated by new schools and include plans to mitigate the impact of such traffic.

Former Barclays Sports Ground, Park View Road - The part of the site to be de- designated needs to be clarified since the map shown has two red lines (dotted and solid). We would oppose loss of more than the minimum required for any new school buildings and ideally no more than the current building/hardstanding footprint. We are also concerned that development of this small part of the site could set a precedent of the remainder of the site which would be highly undesirable unless sufficiently strong safeguards are put in place to prevent this. We would also wish any facilities in the school and remaining open land to be for wider community use. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: As above and proposed mapping changes are clarified at Appendix 1, on the site plans and with text clarification re: red line boundaries added at start of Appendix 1. Proposed changes: As above and changes as noted to Appendix 1

Rep: PFS/PV79 (6 of 8) Name: Jo Winters On behalf of: Ealing Civic Society Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL6 Question 5: Where the loss of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) or community open space is proposed we would not normally agree to the use of such land for development purposes except in the most exceptional circumstances. Overall, we are not reassured, so far, that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent unacceptable development on the MOL and /or community open spaces proposed.

DPD Policy 1 states that "the sites allocated for school use in Table 4.1 will be safeguarded for school use. Development for non-school uses will only be considered … if other uses are already envisaged as part of a mixed proposal incorporating a school, or it can be demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements and is no longer required for school use". We consider that this policy statement, as it stands, does not provide adequate protection for the remainder of each of the sites.

Finally, the DPD needs to make reference to the impact on the local neighbourhood of the increased volume of road traffic likely to be generated by new schools and include plans to mitigate the impact of such traffic.

Former King Fahad Academy Little Ealing Lane - No comment Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: As above Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV79 (7 of 8) Name: Jo Winters On behalf of: Ealing Civic Society Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT7 Question 5: Where the loss of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) or community open space is proposed we would not normally agree to the use of such land for development purposes except in the most exceptional circumstances. Overall, we are not reassured, so far, that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent unacceptable development on the MOL and /or community open spaces proposed.

DPD Policy 1 states that "the sites allocated for school use in Table 4.1 will be safeguarded for school use. Development for non-school uses will only be considered … if other uses are already envisaged as part of a mixed proposal incorporating a school, or it can be demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements and is no longer required for school use". We consider that this policy statement, as it stands, does not provide adequate protection for the remainder of each of the sites.

Finally, the DPD needs to make reference to the impact on the local neighbourhood of the increased volume of road traffic likely to be generated by new schools and include plans to mitigate the impact of such traffic.

Land rear of Twyford High School, Uxbridge Road - We are concerned that development of this small part of the site could set a precedent of the remainder of the site which would be highly undesirable unless sufficiently strong safeguards are put in place to prevent this. We would also wish any facilities in the school and remaining open land to be for wider community use. Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: As above. Further, site S-ACT7 is as a contingency site only, and the site allocation now excludes the land on playing fields. The allocation now relates to the existing building footprint only and no loss of playing fields will occur. Proposed changes: Appendix 1 mapping changes proposed show the proposed site allocation around the existing building only.

Rep: PFS/PV79 (8 of 8) Name: Jo Winters On behalf of: Ealing Civic Society Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT8 Question 5: Where the loss of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) or community open space is proposed we would not normally agree to the use of such land for development purposes except in the most exceptional circumstances. Overall, we are not reassured, so far, that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent unacceptable development on the MOL and /or community open spaces proposed.

DPD Policy 1 states that "the sites allocated for school use in Table 4.1 will be safeguarded for school use. Development for non-school uses will only be considered … if other uses are already envisaged as part of a mixed proposal incorporating a school, or it can be demonstrated that the site is surplus to requirements and is no longer required for school use". We consider that this policy statement, as it stands, does not provide adequate protection for the remainder of each of the sites.

Finally, the DPD needs to make reference to the impact on the local neighbourhood of the increased volume of road traffic likely to be generated by new schools and include plans to mitigate the impact of such traffic.

Acton College, Gunnersbury Lane, Acton - No comment Question 6: (b) Justified (c) Effective Question 7: as above Other comments: Council response: As above Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV80 (1 of 1) Name: Louise Petchey On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: WITHDRAWN Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Proposed changes:

Rep: PFS/PV81 (1 of 2) Name: John Haston On behalf of: West Twyford Residents' Association Paragraph no or site ref: 1.2 Question 5: West Twyford is having a new primary school (doubling it's intake) built in the grounds of the existing school. In the process the community loses Metropolitan Open Land and the new school will have vastly reduced 'green' playing field area. The site of the school is on a major arterial road for the Park Royal industrial estate and changes are proposed to have the school entrance on a bus route with no regard to the existing school entrance and current footpath width. The school intake s also for the neighbouring Brent Borough children, who will reside in a large new development on the borders of Brent and Ealing / West Twyford. West Twyford Residents' Association objected to the existing school site being used for the new school - when there was a vacant brownfield site available in Brent, on the borders of Ealing and Brent, which would have fully complied with the DPD objectives / items 1'2 : ''To provide safe, convenient and accessible locations for Primary and Secondary Schools'' and ''Promote good design and space standards for schools''. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: While Ealing have an obligation / requirement to provide school places for their residents; residents living on Borough boundaries can go to school in other boroughs adjacent to where they live. School place requirements on borough boundaries should, therefore be coordinated between adjacent boroughs or at least the process explored! Other comments: Council response: Noted. Consultation has included adjacent boroughs. Liaison has also been extensive and is ongoing, as evidenced by the Council's statement on Duty to Cooperate. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV81 (2 of 2) Name: John Haston On behalf of: West Twyford Residents' Association Paragraph no or site ref: 1.2 Question 5: Page 20 shows four / five new school sites have been identified on the south border of Ealing. We hope possible sites in the neighbouring boroughs have also been consulted / investigated, so that the children are not deprived of a school, which can cater for 'all' children's' needs and meet fully the objectives of Ealing's School DPD. We got a school on a much less inferior site - to that which was readily available. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: While Ealing have an obligation / requirement to provide school places for their residents; residents living on Borough boundaries can go to school in other boroughs adjacent to where they live. School place requirements on borough boundaries should, therefore be coordinated between adjacent boroughs or at least the process explored! Other comments: Council response: Yes consultation has included adjacent boroughs. Liaison has also been extensive and is ongoing, as evidenced by the Council's statement on Duty to Cooperate. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV82 (1 of 2) Name: John Haston On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: 1.1 Question 5: I would make the comment that the increase in demand as per paragraph 1.1 should include and allowance for immigration and Planning Policy in Ealing. In my local area we have 3 bedroom houses being converted into 9 bedroom houses - capable of taking three families alone. - not to mention the beds in sheds. The demographics of our area is changing - but not in a controlled manner. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: My comments are what I have picked up reading the document. I do not want to get into protracted discussions and confess I have not read all the backup information, but it looks odd on first reading Other comments: Council response: The demography background paper details the Council's established methodology upon which pupil numbers are forecast. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV82 (2 of 2) Name: John Haston On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: 1.4 Question 5: I would also mention that para 1.4 refers to schools 'in the right place'. I'm not sure why most of the new schools are in the South East of the Borough, as shown on the map on page 20. This Plan is for up to year 2019 / 2021. Question 6: (c) Effective Question 7: see above Other comments: Council response: Para 3.11 confirms the areas of greatest need across the borough are in Acton, Ealing and Hanwell. As such, most of the shortlisted sites are in these areas. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV83 (1 of 1) Name: Anne Fowles London Pulse Basketball club On behalf of: London Pulse Basketball club Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: We wish to support the proposed site at the old Barclays Sports Ground next to Hanger Lane as this would be a good location for our basketball club as it is centrally placed in the borough and is close to good transport links. It could also provide us with a great standard of court and more court time for our players each week. We want our voice to be heard in this consultative process as we believe this new school project, at this site, offers our club a very good opportunity to grow, expand and develop basketball amongst all our players. Currently it is difficult for us to get sufficient court time, and often on a court of sufficient standard (for our National League matches for example) within the borough. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV84 (1 of 1) Name: Atiya Jamal On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV85 (1 of 1) Name: Matt Hoppe On behalf of: London Pulse Basketball Club Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Such things as we are a growing club, 100 players each weekend and growing, that we draw players from across the borough and a central location is a good one for us. Hall hire is a huge expense for us (80% approx.) of our costs and we cannot access enough court time for the needs of our club because there are not enough courts in the borough. We also cannot access a court that is of suitable standard for National League games, because one does not currently exist in the borough. The site is a good location, in the centre of the borough and could provide Ealing with a great basketball facility that could be used and accessed by all players in the borough. Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV86 (1 of 1) Name: Jayesh Popat On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I am the owner of X Park View Road and I wish to object to the inclusion of the above site in your " Planning for Schools Development Plan Document". The site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land and is totally unsuitable for a proposed new secondary school. I fully support, agree with and endorse the comments and arguments made by Professor Alan Gillett and his colleagues Mr Tony Hitman and Mr Dan Hazan who have sent you completed consultation response forms. As I was not made aware of your proposal until now I have been unable to obtain or complete the relevant form but I trust that you will accept this letter as an acceptable response. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as to representations referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV87 (1 of 1) Name: Luay Alkasab On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I am emailing regarding the news for the plan to build a Secondary School on Park View Road, where Barclays currently is. As a resident of Park View Road, I would like to express my objection to this idea. I therefore agree with the argument put forward by; Prof. Gillett, Tony Hitman Daniel Hazan Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as to representations referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV88 (1 of 1) Name: David Mealing On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I have not received any information from the council regarding the development of the Barclays Bank site therefore this email is late in being sent as I have only just heard of this proposal. I would like you to note that I agree with the objections raised by Prof Gillett, Tony Hitman and Daniel Hazan of Park View Road. The site is unsuitable for the construction of a school, the noise level will be increased and the volume of traffic will be horrendous. I hope that you will take my objections into account. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as to representations referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV89 (1 of 3) Name: Daniela Petrassi On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL6 Question 5: Support this in particular for Ealing fields Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV89 (2 of 3) Name: Daniela Petrassi On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Support this in particular as site for 'Twyford 3' school Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV89 (3 of 3) Name: Daniela Petrassi On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-HAN1 Question 5: Should surely be 4FE Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: This site is identified as 0FE as is a contingency site only; potentially for temporary use for initial intake only in the event that the permanent 4FE cannot be delivered in the time required. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV90 (1 of 1) Name: Bryony Cove On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV91 (1 of 1) Name: James Freeman On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV92 (1 of 1) Name: Karima Salem On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: Part A Question 5: I would be very happy for the planning to go ahead as I have 2 children of my own that I would be very interested in applying to attend a new and wonderful new school in the area. And I would like a church school because my husband use to go to a church Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV93 (1 of 1) Name: Tobias Hitman On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: All Question 5: The demography, projection and school place planning methodology has not been carried out in sufficient detail. Specifically it lacks information on those parts of the borough which are densely populated by children moving from primary to high schools. Without this information the choice of sites for high schools is likely to result in children being 'bussed' outside their localities or otherwise facing long journeys, thus causing inconvenience to the children, congestion on the roads and unnecessary cost to the borough. In the absence of in depth demography the DPD is neither legally compliant nor sound. Question 6: (a) Positively prepared (b) Justified (c) Effective (d) Consistent with national policy In addition in lacks detailed information Question 7: The preparation of a detailed demographic investigation into local 'clusters' of school children now and in the future moving from primary to high schools could go a long way to making this DPD legally compliant and sound. Other comments: Council response: The demography background paper outlines the population trends and anticipated projections for school places based on a robust methodology. Proposed changes: No change.

Rep: PFS/PV94 (1 of 1) Name: Suzan Chalabe On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: Part A Question 5: I would be very happy for the planning to go ahead as I have 2 children that I would be very happy to attend this new school and I like the church school. My kids they will learn more good things Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV95 (1 of 1) Name: Mr & Mrs Stanton On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: We were surprised to learn from Professor Alan Gillett yesterday of the proposals regarding the future use of the former Barclays Bank sports ground as a school. We would have thought that living very close to the ground we would have been informed by the Council of these proposals. We have read Professor Gillet's letter to you and concur in every way with his views and those of his colleagues Messrs Hitman, Hazan and Dr Stansfield. We feel it is particularly regrettable in our area which is protected by Covenant and is an area of Metropolitan Open Land. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV96 (1 of 1) Name: Patricia Despond On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I am writing as I have learned of a possible development of a new secondary school on the former Barclays Bank Sports ground site in Park View Road, Ealing, W5. I am writing to support the objections sent to you by the officers of the residents Association Prof Gillett, Tony Hitman and Daniel Hazan as the children concerned would not be from neighbouring homes and would have to be transported in from a considerable distance. There is already much busy traffic and parking congestion caused by St Augustine's School in Hillcrest Road which backs on to our properties in Park View Road. We are already disturbed by school sports, fireworks and weekend activities causing additional parking problems. I sincerely hope that a more appropriate choice will be made for a new secondary school. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV97 (1 of 1) Name: F P Boulton On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I have just received, courtesy of Professor Alan Gillett, chairman of Park Crest Residents Association, notification of the former sports field of Barclays Bank proposed scheme. I am obliged to Professor Gillett for this information and must express my dismay (if not to say displeasure) that the Council itself has left not seen fit to disseminate details of its proposals more widely. Granted the proposals are at a very early stage and are only one of several possibilities but the implications for this neighbourhood were they to be carried through, are so enormous that every resident likely to be affected should in my view be immediately made aware of what is a foot. That includes every resident of Park View Road, Hillcrest Road and Woodville Road because the traffic implications of another school in our midst (i.e. in addition to St Augustine’s) are too overwhelming to contemplate. While the traffic and access aspects alone should in my opinion be sufficient to rule out this site and are my particular concerns, I agree in general and in their entirely with the representations made to you by Professor Gillett and Messrs Tony Hitman and Daniel Hazan of Park View Road, setting out their cogent objections re this most important matter. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV98 (1 of 1) Name: Rishi Kansagra On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I am the owner of X Park View Road and I wish to object to the inclusion of the above site in your "Planning for Schools Development Plan Document". The site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land and is totally unsuitable for a proposed new secondary school. I fully support, agree with and endorse the comments and arguments made by Professor Alan Gillett and his colleagues Mr Tony Hitman and Mr Dan Hazan who have sent you completed consultation response forms. As I was not made aware of your proposal until now I have been unable to obtain or complete the relevant form but I trust that you will accept this letter as an acceptable response. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV99 (1 of 1) Name: Yoko Kegawa On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I am sure by now you have received a letter from Prof. Alan Gillett regarding the plans for development of the former Barclays Bank Sports field I totally agree with the objections described in the letter by Prof. A. Gillett, Mr T. Hitman and Mr D. Hazan of Park View Rd. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV100 (1 of 8) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: St Mary's Church of England, Paragraph no or site ref: The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green Southall UB2 4LA Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: On behalf of St Mary's Church of England School, Norwood Green, JLL is instructed to submit The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green, Southall UB2 4LA (‘the site’) for consideration for an educational allocation in Ealing Borough Council’s Planning for Schools Development Plan Document (DPD). Overview It is understood that the purpose of the Planning for Schools DPD is to identify site opportunities for Primary and Secondary school provision. The document acknowledges that Free Schools face the same difficulties as the Council in identifying suitable sites, the DPD aims to facilitate the provision of such sites in the Borough for Free School providers. The document identifies St Mary’s Church of England School as part of the existing Free School provision in Ealing Borough Council. Subsequent to entering into a funding agreement with the Secretary of State, St Mary’s Church of England School opened in September 2014 in temporary school buildings located behind the Church Hall on Norwood Green Road, with an initial cohort of 30 pupils. However, there is no long term capacity for the school to expand at this site; as such a permanent site is sought. The DPD identifies a short list of eight sites. The permanent proposal site for St Mary’s Church of England School (The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green, Southall UB2 4LA) is not one of the eight sites identified within the DPD, in fact, there are no identified sites located within or close to Norwood Green that would meet the school’s location requirements. The closest identified site, 42 Lower Boston Road, Hanwell (S-HAN4) is located 3.5km away from the existing temporary school site. As such, the purpose of this letter is to promote the Tentelow Lane site for an educational allocation in Ealing Borough Council’s Planning for Schools Development Plan Document, in addition to those already allocated. Council response: No additional sites are being considered at this stage. The Council is currently dealing with a planning application for the proposed development for a new school at this site, following previous refusal of a similar application. Proposed changes: No change.

Rep: PFS/PV100 (2 of 8) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: St Mary's Church of England, Norwood Green Paragraph no or site ref: The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green Southall UB2 4LA Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Education Funding Agency The Education Funding Agency (EFA) is the Department for Education’s delivery agency for funding and compliance, to acquire premises for the successful applicants to the Free School Programme. Free Schools are all-ability state-funded schools set up in response to local and specialist demand in order to improve education for children in their community. The Free School programme enables it to be much easier for talented and committed teachers, charities parents and education experts to open schools to address real demand within an area. They are given the funding that any local school would receive, as well as the funding that the Local Authority would normally keep for central services but the difference is the funding comes directly from Government and not via the Local Authority. The EFA will be providing the funding for the acquisition, fees, works and operation of the respective schools. They provide revenue and capital funding for education for all mainstream learners between the ages of 3 and 19 and also deliver building and maintenance programmes for schools, academies, Free Schools and sixth-form colleges. Further information regarding the Free School Programme can be found here: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/leadership/typesofschools/freeschools Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV100 (3 of 8) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: St Mary's Church of England, Norwood Green Paragraph no or site ref: The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green Southall UB2 4LA Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: St Mary’s Church of England School St Mary’s Church of England School is a non-selective primary school for Norwood Green with 1 Form of Entry (FE) for children from Reception to Year 6. There will be up to 30 children in each class. At full capacity in 2020, the school will have 210 pupils aged 4-11 years. The school has been established together with local parents and teachers to meet the needs of children and families in Norwood Green and the wider Southall area. Subsequent to entering into a funding agreement with the Secretary of State, St Mary’s opened in September 2014 in temporary school buildings located behind the Church Hall on Norwood Green Road, with an initial cohort of 30 pupils. There is no long term capacity for the school to expand at this site; as such a permanent solution is sought. Following an extensive local area search, the site at The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green, Southall UB2 4LA was determined as the preferred location for St Mary’s based on the vision and requirements of the school, as approved by the Department for Education. The Site and Surrounding Context The site is situated within the administrative boundary of Ealing Borough Council, towards the north eastern corner of Norwood Green, Southall. The site consists of 0.4 hectares (1.02 acres) and is currently occupied by a large detached two storey residential dwelling (Use Class C3) which is located towards the centre of the large L shaped site. The site has a wooded area running along the north east boundary of the site, as well as a large number of mature trees in the front garden. There is one existing vehicular access point, located on the right hand side of the site frontage. The site falls within Flood Risk Zone 1. In this zone land is assessed as having 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea flooding (<0.1%) in any year. The site has a Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) of 1b (on a scale of 1-6 where 6b is the highest). The site is served by the 120 bus which runs between Hounslow Bus Station and Northolt. The nearest bus stop for this service is located within 300m walking distance from the site. Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV100 (4 of 8) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: St Mary's Church of England, Norwood Green Paragraph no or site ref: The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green Southall UB2 4LA Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Policy Context Site Designation The site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) on Ealing Borough Council’s adopted Proposals Map. The site is designated as a Site of Metropolitan and Local Importance for Nature Conservation and an Archaeological Interest Area. The site also falls within the Norwood Green Conservation Area, the character and appearance of which is sought to be preserved and enhanced by planning policy. Metropolitan Open Land The whole of the site is designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) which means that the site essentially has the same restrictions as Green Belt land. It is therefore protected from ‘inappropriate development’ unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. A new primary school would be considered ‘inappropriate development’ if it were significantly larger than the existing building on site. As part of the forthcoming planning application, the applicant will seek to demonstrate that there are ‘very special circumstances’ including: - There is a significant immediate educational need for a new primary school within the Borough; - There are no other suitable and available non MOL sites in close proximity to the existing temporary school site and the population of Norwood; - There is widespread community support for the school; and - The proposal would not significantly harm the functional openness of the MOL. A number of the eight short listed sites identified in the DPD are also designated as MOL (Site Reference Numbers: S-ACT2, S-HAN1 and S-EAL4). The DPD sets out that this will be addressed by the Council seeking to de-designate all or part of the sites currently designated as MOL on the basis that there are special circumstances justifying the de-designation, namely a lack of alternative policy compliant sites. The de-designation of all or part of the shortlisted sites which are currently designated as MOL is therefore sought through the DPD. Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV100 (5 of 8) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: St Mary's Church of England, Norwood Green Paragraph no or site ref: The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green Southall UB2 4LA Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Demolition in the Conservation Area The site lies within the Norwood Green Conservation Area. Policy 7C (Ealing Local Policy – Heritage) seeks to retain and enhance characteristics features and to avoid the introduction of designs and materials that would undermine the significance of the Conservation Area. The site is not listed in the national statutory list of historic buildings and it is not included in the Ealing Local Heritage List. An initial Heritage Report has been commissioned for the site and concludes that the existing building on the site has limited heritage value. Moreover, despite the Norwood Green Conservation Area Appraisal (March 2007) stating the site makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, the Heritage Report concludes that it would be more accurate to say that the building makes a neutral contribution. Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV100 (6 of 8) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: St Mary's Church of England, Norwood Green Paragraph no or site ref: The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green Southall UB2 4LA Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: The Principle of Educational Use Paragraph 72 of the NPPF states: “The Government attaches great importance to ensuring that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local Planning Authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should: - Give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools; and - Work with school promoters to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.” London Plan Policies 3.16 (Protection and Enhancement of Social Infrastructure) and 3.18 (Education Facilities), as well as Core Strategy Policy 6.2 (Social Infrastructure) recognise the requirement for additional social infrastructure to meet the demands of the growing and diverse population. This includes the provision of new primary schools and Free Schools. Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change Rep: PFS/PV100 (7 of 8) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: St Mary's Church of England, Norwood Green Paragraph no or site ref: The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green Southall UB2 4LA Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Environmental and Biodiversity Constraints The site supports an area of unmanaged woodland along the north-eastern boundary, as well as a number of mature trees interspersed across the remainder of the site. There are no statutory wildlife sites within 1km of the site. Policy 5.4 (Protect the National Environment – Biodiversity and Geodiversity) and policies 2.18 (Green Infrastructure: The Network of Open and Green Spaces), 5.10 (Ealing Local Variation – Minimising Carbon Dioxide Emissions) and 7D (Ealing Local Policy – Open Space) seek to protect and enhance the natural environment, this includes existing trees of value. Where a development will result in the loss of trees, replacements should be provided or enhanced wherever achievable. Redevelopment of the site for educational use would see an enhanced management and beneficial enjoyment of the existing ecological contribution of the site. An Ecological Assessment and Tree Survey would be provided as part of the forthcoming application. Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV100 (8 of 8) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: St Mary's Church of England, Norwood Green Paragraph no or site ref: The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green Southall UB2 4LA Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Conclusions It is respectfully requested that The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green, Southall UB2 4LA is considered as a potential site for education within the Planning for Schools Development Plan Document. As outlined above, St Mary’s Church of England School opened in September 2014 in temporary school buildings, however there is no long term capacity for the school to expand at this site. As such a permanent solution is required in close proximity to the temporary site and the population of Norwood Green. Following an extensive local area search, The Rectory site was determined as the preferred location for St Mary’s based on the vision and requirements of the school, as approved by the Department for Education. Consequently, we request that this site is allocated for educational use in addition to the sites already proposed for allocation within the draft DPD. Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV101 (1 of 4) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: Education Funding Agency (EFA) Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: On behalf of the EFA, JLL is instructed to submit comment on Ealing Borough Council’s Planning for Schools Development Plan Document (DPD). The EFA welcomes the draft DPD as a whole and supports the allocation of the proposed sites for education use. The DPD sets out that funding for three Free Schools has been agreed by the Education Funding Agency (EFA), to be provided by Ealing Fields, Twyford Academies Trust and Ark. Sites for these Free Schools have yet to be confirmed; however the DPD will help to facilitate provision and the EFA fully supports the allocation of these sites for education use as set out in the DPD. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV101 (2 of 4) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: Education Funding Agency (EFA) Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: In addition, in March 2015 the EFA approved Floreat Southall primary school; a site search is currently underway to identify a suitable site for this school. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV101 (3 of 4) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: Education Funding Agency (EFA) Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT8 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: With regards to the Acton Park Depot site (SACT8) plans are well developed for this to be the permanent site for Ark Byron primary school from September 2016 and a planning application will be forthcoming later in 2015. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV101 (4 of 4) Name: Jennifer Watson Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd On behalf of: Education Funding Agency (EFA) Paragraph no or site ref: The Rectory, 26 Tentelow Lane, Norwood Green Southall UB2 4LA Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: With regards to St Mary’s primary school 26 Tentelow Lane has been identified as the school’s preferred site and pre-application consultation has been undertaken with London Borough of Ealing and the local community. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV102 (1 of 1) Name: Janet Skinner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I have received notification of the former sports field of Barclays Bank scheme only in the past week, courtesy of Professor Alan Gillett, chairman of Park Crest Residents Association. I would have thought that everyone in the immediate vicinity of such a massive development scheme, albeit in its early stages, would have been advised as its implications are truly devastating. Already this area is subject to traffic jams twice daily due to the proximity of St Augustine’s School, another school of a presumably greater pupil complement with the need for buses joining the fray, does not bear thinking about. This aspect is my major concern, but I am in complete agreement with the cogent arguments against the proposed scheme put forward by Professor Gillett, Tony Hitman, Daniel Hazan of Park View Road Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV103 (1 of 1) Name: Freida Paget On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I write to record an objection to the development plan for the former sports field of Barclays Bank to be a new borough high school. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV104 (1 of 1) Name: J Allibone On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I write to confirm my agreement to the points raised by Professor Gillett, Tony Hitman & Daniel Hazan in relation to the former sports field of Barclays Bank. This field should be used for sports. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV105 (1 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Thank you for your letter of 20 February 2075 consulting me on the above document and requesting an opinion on general conformity. As you will be aware, all development plan documents must be in general conformity with the London Plan under section 24 (1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. On 14 April 2075 my officers provided initial comments, reference LDFO9/LDD12/02 on the publication version document. The Council has responded to a number of matters raised as part of that process. However, it is my opinion that the proposed submission document is not in general conformity with my London Plan in respect of the following matters: I set out below and the attached report my reasons and also other representations to clarify or improve other policy areas subject to this review. Ealing Council’s Planning for Schools DPD is not currently considered to be in general conformity with the London Plan, but could be if the Council accepts to do the following: Council response: The Council submitted suggested changes to the DPD Policy wording and supporting text to respond to the matters raised and the GLA have subsequently provided a letter to confirm that with these proposed changes the DPD publication version would be in conformity with the London Plan. Proposed changes: Additional wording to Policy 1 and supporting text at para 4.22 and new para 5.11(a) which respectively confirm that uses other than education uses would not be justified; ensure allocation of minimum site area necessary to provide the education facilities is allocated on MOL/playing fields; and introduce time-limited de-designation from MOL in the event that provision is no longer required. This wording has been agreed by the GLA.

Rep: PFS/PV105 (2 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: - demonstrate that the sites selected effectively cause ‘least harm’ to MOL in the terms and criteria set for release of Green Belt in the NPPF/NPPG Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV105 (3 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2, S- HAN1, S-EAL4 and S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: - permit only educational uses on the sites designated as MOL, open space and playing fields (sites ref: S-ACT2, S-HAN7, S-EAL4, and S-ACT7) Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV105 (4 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: - allocate the minimum site area necessary to provide the required educational facilities for these sites (as referenced in the report) Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV105 (5 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: - explore the use of time limited de-designation to ensure that if these sites are not developed as schools within the plan period (to 2027) the sites revert to their current protected designation of MOL, open space and playing fields. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV105 (6 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Planning Report - D&P/LDF09/LDD12/02 Context 1. On 20 February 2015 Ealing Council consulted the Mayor of London on the above Document. This report sets out information for the Mayor’s use in deciding what comments to make. The consultation period ends on 15 April 2015. 2. The Local Development Framework together with the Mayor’s Spatial Development Strategy (“London Plan”) and the National Planning Policy Framework (“NPPF”) provides the essential framework for planning at the borough level. The “development plan” in London for the purposes of section 38(6) of the Act is: - The London Plan, 2015 and - Ealing Council Core Strategy Development plan document (April 2012). 3. There are three types of Local Development Documents (“LDDs”): Development Plan Documents (DPDs); Supplementary Planning Documents (“SPDs”); and Statements of Community Involvement. All of the documents now being consulted on are DPDs with development plan status, which will be subject to an examination to test the ‘soundness’ of the plan. 4. The NPPF states that a plan is “sound” where it is positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV105 (7 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: The Mayor’s role 5. All DPDs must be in general conformity with the London Plan, in accordance with Section 24(1)(b) of the PCPA. Section 24(4) of the PCPA requires boroughs prior to submitting it to the Secretary of State to request the opinion in writing of the Mayor of London as to the general conformity of a DPD with the London Plan and advises that they may request the opinion in writing of the Mayor as to the general conformity of any other LDD. The Mayor issues this opinion on DPD general conformity in accordance with Section 24(5) of the PCPA. Further to this Regulation 18 requires general consultation at the pre-submission stage. By virtue of Regulation 21(2) of the Regulations the Mayor has 6 weeks from the date of the request to provide his opinion on whether the DPD is in general conformity with the London Plan. 6. Mayor of London’s comments will be made available on the GLA website www.london.gov.uk. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV105 (8 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Previous representations 11. On 11 December 2013, (planning report PDU/LDF09/LDD12/HS01), representations were made by officers under delegated authority to the (Issues and Options) consultation stage. A number of the issues that were raised at these stages needed to be resolved. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above Rep: PFS/PV105 (9 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Strategic issues School provision on Metropolitan Open Land, Open Spaces and Playing Fields 12. The Mayor is fully aware of the acute shortage of school places across London and the guidance in para 72 of the NPPF, however, this needs to be balanced against policies protecting Green Belt, Metropolitan Open Land, public open spaces and playing fields. The proposal for School would be inappropriate development on such protected lands; therefore very special circumstances (VSC) will need to be identified to justify the harm caused to the Green Belt or the MOL by the inappropriate development and any other harm. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV105 (10 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 13. School places need: It is understood that the Council has been expanding primary school places in response to local demand since 2008 and in September 2014 there were the equivalent of an additional 35.5 FE or 1,061 places in reception classes compared to 2008 levels. This 35.5 FE additional provision comprises 29 permanent FE and 6.5 FE temporary/bulge classes. In terms of secondary school provision, an additional 2 FE has been created at Dormers Wells High School and a further 6 FE was available at the new William Perkin High School from September 2013. The Council has also agreed expansion of 131 places for primary aged pupils with Special Educational Needs across the borough’s special schools and Additionally Resourced Provision attached to mainstream schools. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (11 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 14. The current version of the Council’s DPD for Schools provision states that “For the purposes of this DPD, the need has therefore been identified based on the most recent demographic data available, as outlined in the 2015 demography background paper. Since the 2013 consultation, the primary need has dropped from 14.5 FE to 6 FE and the secondary need has increased from 21 to 23 FE. The demography background paper outlines the reasons for these changes.” Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (12 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 15. The 2015 background paper on demography provides detail on the currently anticipated need (forms of entry/FE required) across the borough, by when, and which areas have the greatest need. In summary: - Primary need is 6 FE borough-wide by September 2016. - Secondary need is 23 FE borough-wide by September 2019. The earliest and greatest need is in Acton, Ealing and Hanwell. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (13 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 16. However, the DPD states that there are planned provision and details of the existing agreed programme of provision: - Planned primary provision is 2.5 FE - Planned secondary provision is 4 FE Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (14 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 17. Shortfall: The identified need minus the planned provision figures result in potential shortfalls in provision of school places as below: - Primary shortfall is 3.5 FE by Sept 2016 (need of 6 FE minus 2.5 FE planned provision). - Secondary shortfall is 19 FE by Sept 2019 (need of 23 FE minus 4 FE planned provision). Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (15 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 18. The Mayor supports the Council’s proactive approach to planning for schools which identifies the acute need for new primary and secondary school places and seeks to identify new sites for extensions to existing schools and provision of new schools. This is in line with London Plan Policy 3.18 on Education Facilities. Council response: Support of Council's approach noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (16 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 19. Site selection criteria: It is understood that in addition to the Council’s own attempts to find suitable sites, various sites searches have been commissioned. The site selection criteria and its methodology as detailed in the document are considered robust as the long list sites that was published at Issues and Options Stage was reduced to the list of 8 shortlisted sites (as set out in Table 4.1 of the document), after some additional sites were included for consideration. In addition to long listing criteria of site policy compliance and area of need, short listing criteria have included site deliverability, public transport accessibility and proximity to playing fields. Deliverability has included an assessment of the likelihood of the site to provide school intake by the date required, including consideration of site circumstances, availability, ownership, and viability. The shortlisting process has also been informed by the outcome of the Sustainability Appraisal of the sites. Council response: Support of Council's methodology noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (17 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2, S- HAN1, S-EAL4 and S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 20. It is noted that some of the sites currently shortlisted (S-ACT 2, S-HAN1 & S- EAL4) are designated as Metropolitan Open Land, and the (S-ACT7) as an Open Space and used as a playing field. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (18 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2, S- HAN1, S-EAL4 and S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 21. Although school development on MOL, Open Space and Playing Fields is inappropriate developments, the Council has demonstrated a special case that justifies school developments on the selected sites in terms of meeting educational need. Considering the acute shortage of school places and lack of alternate suitable sites, the Council’s proposals to provide schools on the shortlisted sites are acceptable in these terms. Council response: Support of Council's approach noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (19 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2, S- HAN1, S-EAL4 and S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 22. However, this case rests on the need for additional school places and not on the function of the sites as MOL (which should be treated in the same way as Green Belt, national policy for which does provide some flexibility for release in specified circumstances) or open space and playing fields and thus their loss can only be considered as acceptable for school development. If these sites are not developed for educational use, development for other uses is not justified by the Council’s evidence and would not be in conformity with the London Plan. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Additional wording to Policy 1 and supporting text at para 4.22 and new para 5.11(a) which respectively confirm that uses other than education uses would not be justified; ensure allocation of minimum site area necessary to provide the education facilities is allocated on MOL/playing fields; and introduce time-limited de-designation from MOL in the event that provision is no longer required. This wording has been agreed by the GLA.

Rep: PFS/PV105 (20 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2, S- HAN1, S-EAL4 and S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 23. Therefore for the plan to be in general conformity with the London Plan the Council should: - demonstrate that the sites selected effectively cause ‘least harm’ to MOL in the terms and criteria set for release of Green Belt in the NPPF/NPPG, - permit only educational uses on the sites designated as MOL, open space and playing fields (sites ref: S-ACT2, S-HAN1, S-EAL4, and S-ACT7), - allocate the minimum site area necessary to provide the required educational facilities for these sites (as referenced above), and - explore the use of time limited de-designation to ensure that if these sites are not developed as schools within the plan period (to 2021) the sites revert to their current protected designation of MOL, open space and playing fields. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV105 (21 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Transport for London’s comments 24. TfL generally supports of Ealing Council’s draft Development Plan Document which aims at enhancing school capacity within the borough, to cater for the expected increase in demand for school places. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (22 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 25. TfL welcomes that the document acknowledges London Plan policy 3.16 ‘Protection and Enhancement of social infrastructure’, which confirms a criterial based approach to the provision/ expansion of social infrastructure facilities. This includes the following important aims related to transport: - Easily accessible by walking and cycling; - Well connected to public transport. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (23 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 26. In keeping with the above criteria, para 4.10 states that public transport accessibility forms part of the site short-listing criteria. However, it is unclear how and what weight has been given to transport accessibility in the short-listing process; this needs to be clarified. TfL considers that site selection should give significant weight to ensuring convenient and safe access by walking, cycling as well as by public transport services. Key among the benefits is reduction of the amount of vehicular traffic during the school run peaks in mornings and mid-afternoons. Council response: The site selection criteria have not been weighted although deliverability is key in ensuring sites are delivered in time to meet the identified need. Further detailed analysis of transport implications would be assessed as part of any subsequent planning application on any of the identified sites once the detailed proposals are known. DPD para 4.23 already confirms that 'each new extension or school would still require a planning application and would be considered on its own merits in terms of design and other impacts'. Safe and convenient access and maximising travel by non-car modes would be sought in accordance with adopted Local Plan policies and requirements, including securing new infrastructure as part of development proposals or through Legal Agreements to improve accessibility and safety as required. Proposed changes: Suggested additional text to make specific reference to consideration of 'transport' impact in para 4.23 and means of securing mitigation of impacts.

Rep: PFS/PV105 (24 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 27. A total of eight sites have been short-listed in the document. While five sites record a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) of 4 or above (of which 6 is the highest and 1 is the lowest), and three of the sites are with PTAL 2 or below. It is strongly suggested that the DPD acknowledges that mitigation of impacts through provision of improved public transport infrastructure are likely to be required for the latter cases. Otherwise, the two identified sports grounds in particular may not be appropriate locations for school use in transport planning terms. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: See revisions to para 4.23

Rep: PFS/PV105 (25 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 28. It is also suggested that the DPD includes an advisory to all those involved in identifying and progressing proposals for new schools as well as expansion of existing sites, that a full transport assessment will be required as a key document in support of the planning applications for the development of these sites. This is in reference to and in adherence of the latest TfL Transport Assessment Best Practice Guidance, which in turn supports London Plan policy 6.3 ‘Assessment effects of development on transport capacity’ and policy 6.2 ‘Providing public transport capacity and safeguard land for transport’. Such robust assessment enables adequate mitigation to be secured, typically by providing a contribution toward additional bus service capacity, though other smaller mitigations may also be requested on a site by site basis. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Suggested additional wording in para 4.23 to confirm a Transport Assessment would be required with any planning application.

Rep: PFS/PV105 (26 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 29. TfL also recommends that a restraint-based approach should be adopted for on- site and sometimes on-street car parking provision to further minimise school run traffic, in line with London Plan policy 6.13 ‘Parking’. Parking provision, if any, either off street or on-street, needs to be adequately managed by way of parking management plan, or on-street parking restrictions if needed, to minimise congestion and ensure safety of vulnerable road users, i.e. pedestrians and cyclists – especially those of school age. TfL requests that this is covered in the guidance and that it requires, for new and greatly- expanded schools, that PERS and CERS audits are undertaken to identify improvement needs for local walking and cycling routes in the vicinity. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: See revisions to para 4.23

Rep: PFS/PV105 (27 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 30. Lastly, TfL expects schools to contribute towards the local walking and cycling environment in order to encourage demand for these sustainable modes of transport. On-site cycle parking provision should adhere to the latest 2015 London Plan cycle parking standards in line with London Plan policy 6.9 ‘cycling’ and 6.10 ‘Walking’. Furthermore, all school applications should be accompanied by a framework school travel plan (to be completed as a condition of planning permission), and they should be accredited by the ‘School Travel Plan Accreditation scheme’ (STAR).

Council response: Noted Proposed changes: See above. Revised para 2.12 also includes reference to assessment of design and impact with reference to Local Plan documents including the London Plan.

Rep: PFS/PV105 (28 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Legal considerations 30. All LDDs must be in general conformity with the London Plan in accordance with Section 24(1)(b) of the Act. This is a key test of the soundness of plans. The Mayor’s representations made at this stage will go forward to the examination in public and must include an opinion regarding general conformity with the London Plan. Council response: Noted. A letter of general conformity has been received. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (29 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 31. The fact that a development plan document is inconsistent with one or more policies in the London Plan, either directly or through the omission of a policy or proposal, does not, by itself, mean that the document is not in general conformity. Rather, the test is how significant the inconsistency is from the point of view of delivery of the London Plan. Council response: A letter of general conformity has been received. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (30 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 32. Any expression of opinion from the Mayor that the DPD is not in general conformity will be treated as a representation to be dealt with by the Inspector at the examination. The Planning Inspectorate has stated that the view of the Mayor’s opinion “will be given considerable weight”1 and that a lack of general conformity with the London Plan will need to be fully justified on the basis of local circumstances, based on relevant evidence. Council response: A letter of general conformity has been received. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (31 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 33. The Mayor must also state why the policy is not in general conformity and his reasoning behind that opinion. The Inspector will determine whether he or she supports the opinion and recommend accordingly. The Mayor should provide the Inspector conducting the examination with any necessary additional information as appropriate, either through a representative or in writing according to the requirements of the Inspector. Council response: A letter of general conformity has been received. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105 (32 of 32) Name: Boris Johnson On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2, S- HAN1, S-EAL4 and S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Conclusion 34. Ealing Council’s Planning for Schools DPD is not currently considered to be in general conformity with the London Plan, but could be if the Council accepts to do the following: - demonstrate that the sites selected effectively cause ‘least harm’ to MOL in the terms and criteria set for release of Green Belt in the NPPF/NPPG, - permit only educational uses on the sites designated as MOL, open space and playing fields (sites ref: S-ACT2, S-HAN1, S-EAL4, and S-ACT7), - allocate the minimum site area necessary to provide the required educational facilities for these sites (as referenced above), and - explore the use of time limited de-designation to ensure that if these sites are not developed as schools within the plan period (to 2021) the sites revert to their current protected designation of MOL, open space and playing fields. Council response: The Council submitted suggested changes to the DPD Policy wording and supporting text to respond to the matters raised and GLA have subsequently provided a letter to confirm that with these proposed changes the DPD publication version would be in conformity with the London Plan. Proposed changes: Additional wording to Policy 1,supporting text at para 4.22, new para 5.11(a) and introduction text at Appendix 1

Rep: PFS/PV106 (1 of 1) Name: V. A Smith On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Please note that I agree with Professor Gillett, Tony Hitman & Daniel Hazan of Park View Road regarding the objection to the former sports field of Barclays Bank Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to

Rep: PFS/PV107 (1 of 1) Name: David Bays On behalf of: Acton History Group Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Just wanted to check with you re the plan for the proposed school in Acton Park that the Acton Park Lodge which was the house for the park keeper originally and is currently the base for the Rangers will not be demolished as part of the development Council response: The lodge is proposed to be retained. Appendix 1 mapping confirms the proposed new school building position by a hatched red line and retention of the lodge at the front of the site. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV108 (1 of 11) Name: Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: We have been abroad on a business trip and returned this week, when to our astonishment we were advised by our neighbours that the Council is considering the development of the former Barclays Bank Sports Ground and Club House, located opposite our house and having a long frontage to Park View Road, to a new Borough High School, without having notified us of their respective plans at any time to-date. We understand that our neighbours Professor Allan Gillett and Tony Hitman of Park View Road and others have already written to you objecting to the above Council Plans. Please note that we fully agree with our above neighbours' objections. Although we are all aware of the need, in principle/ for more provision for High schools in the Borough there are three grounds of objection we have identified under the headings of "Planning Policy", "Demography and "Restrictive Covenants", which we deal with reverse order for convenience here below. Council response: Noted. Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to

Rep: PFS/PV108 (2 of 11) Name: Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: The Restrictive Covenant Some years ago with the considerable and continuing help of Victor Mishiku founder of the 'Covenant Movement' our neighbour Professor Allan Gillet OBE DSc MA FRICS FCEM found that there is a restrictive covenant for the benefit of all who live on the Hanger Hill Estate/ established by the Wood family who owned the Estate/ originally of 900 acres of Ealing, which they set up in the nineteenth century. Professor Gillet gathered from a chartered surveyor colleague of his, David Turner, then chief surveyor of Barclays Bank, that the then Barclays Bank Ltd were advised when the land was purchased on 4th November 1921 for use as a sports ground, that if it were not used for that purpose, then the covenant stated that the only permitted development that the land could be used for was for private dwelling houses (which does not arise in this case ) and specifically NOT for a school, trade or business whatsoever. We are therefore of the opinion that this rules out the Council's proposed use of this land for a school. The Council should therefore reconsider this site against the others in Acton, Greenford, and Hanwell for example. Council response: Noted. Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to

Rep: PFS/PV108 (3 of 11) Name: Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Demography Our next door neighbour Mr Tony Hitman FRICS, a retired chartered surveyor, is objecting to the position of a Senior School, as the Plan names their proposed High School here/ in this particular location which is described in the subsidiary document "Demography, Projections and school place planning methodology" . Our objection is that the anticipated rise in the Senior School population, as set out in this publication, will not relate to a "catchment area11 that would specifically cover the Barclays land and thus to our Park View Road neighbourhood. The case can be made out for the sites in 4.17 of the main document S-Han 1, S-GNP2, S-Eal 4 and S-Act 8. In other words, Barclays Bank S-Eal 4 is the least appropriate site and would almost certainly lead to bussing the pupils into our busy road at rush hour times from distant areas of Ealing where they will be living. We would like to stress that we see this as implicitly indicated in the Borough's review of the need to build more schools in the areas of greater need which do not include our area in particular, and our objection should not be seen as one of pure "nimbyism". Council response: Revised wording is suggested at para 4.23 which now confirms the consideration of all impacts, including transport impacts, will be subject to further detailed assessment at the subsequent planning application stage, and that mitigation of impacts would be secured through the development details, planning conditions and/or Legal Agreement. Proposed changes: Changes to para 4.23 as noted

Rep: PFS/PV108 (4 of 11) Name: Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Planning Policy The Council acknowledges that they have a major problem, (though they try to say it would be easy to overcome) in that Barclays is designated, as we have said above, as Metropolitan Open Land. The Council Plan paragraph 4.19 states "this will have to be addressed by seeking to dedesignate all or part of the sites currently designated as MOL on the basis that there are special circumstances justifying the de-designation, namely the lack of alternative policy compliant sites". We do not know the mechanism that would be used by the Council in this de- designation of what is officially MOL land but it would fly in the face of National Planning Policy framework. This Policy provides guidance in Green Belt & MOL, both of which are protected. For MOL, "exception" is only recognised when there is no reduction in its openness and/or where there is no conflict with the purpose of the land. New schools are not typically regarded as "exceptional~~ forms of development. It further provides that development within MOL is prohibited except, in quotes, circumstances or harm to "openness11 or the intent of the land, in this case Sport Recreation & Leisure all of which would apply to Barclays. School development is not automatically exceptional but "due cause must be proven to make it so" Council response: Proposed revised wording to Policy 1, additional text at para 4.22 and new para 5.11 confirm respectively that uses other than education uses would not be justified; ensure minimum site area to provide the education facilities is allocated; and introduce time-limited de-designation from MOL if sites are not developed and evidence indicates they are no longer required. These changes are supported by the GLA. Proposed changes: Policy changes and additions to text as referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV108 (5 of 11) Name: Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Further points regarding loss of MOL, see London (GLA) policy. In his Election Manifesto, Mayor Boris Johnson specifically lists as one of his intents that London's green and open spaces are to be afforded full protection against development. Policy # 7.17 actually states that. It states that openness must not be lost or harmed, and planners must prioritise protection of MOL; more specifically/ inappropriate development is to be refused, except it says "very special circumstances". The status is therefore that MOL is protected like Green Belt. In defining appropriate development it deems that would be small scales structures, and that it upholds established or recognised usage of open space. We would add that Barclays bought the land in or about 1922 and that the site remains a sports ground to this day even though it is hardly, if ever, used as such these days. However, those of us living near the sports club building remember that a film company that used the building without planning permission, lost their appeal against an enforcement action by the council to cease that use and the film company withdrew. Council response: As above. The GLA have now issued a letter confirming general conformity with the London Plan. Proposed changes: No change.

Rep: PFS/PV108 (6 of 11) Name: Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Core Strategy (2012) Policy Policy # 5.2: MOL's status is protected to provide recreation and nature conservation. Specifically, Fox Reservoir, St Augustine's Playing Fields and the Old Barclays Sports Ground are to become a new district park. Council response: As above. Proposed use of the former Barclays site as a school would not preclude the creation of a district park on the site. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV108 (7 of 11) Name: Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: The Council's argument for the replacement of Old Barclay's Sports Ground with a school It has been argued that MOL status can be abrogated, i.e. de-designated, by virtue of the Council's obligation to meet other Policy regarding the forecast shortfall in secondary school places, that this shortfall is acute/ and there are no other sites that fulfil the terms of the Schools Policy. Thus, goes the argument, it meets the definition of exceptional circumstances. This argument fails since it defies the principle that defence of green and open land is the first consideration in the Policy on MOL, and that there is nothing exceptional per se in pressure to develop land for a school. Similar argument of "pressure" can, and are 1 advanced by prospective users and developers. Abrogation of MOL status in deference "stultifies11 the meaning of MOL and green space. That the demand is from a Borough Council constitutes no "exceptional" or "very special circumstances" per se. Council response: The GLA consider the case rests on the need for school places and not on the function of sites as MOL. As such additional wording to Policy 1 and supporting text at para 4.22 and new para 5.11(a) which respectively confirm that uses other than education uses would not be justified; ensure allocation of minimum site area necessary to provide the education facilities is allocated on MOL/playing fields; and introduce time-limited de-designation from MOL in the event that provision is no longer required. This suggested wording has been agreed by the GLA. Proposed changes: Proposed change to policies and text referred to in Council's response.

Rep: PFS/PV108 (8 of 11) Name: Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Further arguments on the unsuitability of former Barclay's S G a school site 1) Access. The large site has no access for a school other than via a short strip of 100m on to Park View Road. The access is within som of a blind deceptive bend near where we live at No. 16. Despite efforts by the Council to enforce a 20 mph speed limit, vehicles continuously exceed 40 mph or more past our house located few houses south of Barclay's club house where the school is designated to be built so we understand. Bunched traffic at school's opening and closing times, as we already see at the top of the road with St. Augustine's parents for the school in Hillcrest Road, would be a portent of things to come were the new school to be built here. Importantly/ on this aspect, this same argument in respect of speeding and accidents on the bend was upheld by HM Inspector of Planning in 2008 in which he ruled against the commercial use of No. 46 on a much smaller scale than a secondary school would be on a position of close proximity. Council response: The DPD seeks to allocate sites for schools to meet the identified need. DPD para 4.23 already confirms that 'each new extension or school would still require a planning application and would be considered on its own merits in terms of design and other impacts'. Safe and convenient access and maximising travel by non-car modes would be sought in accordance with adopted Local Plan policies and requirements, including securing new infrastructure as part of development proposals or through Legal Agreements to improve accessibility and safety as required. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV108 (9 of 11) Name: Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 2) Park View Road, following the Secretary of State's decision in 1) above, remains entirely residential. Use of this land for educational purpose would be a very substantial 'change of use', in planning terms, and would call for a major local planning inquiry where our Resident' s Association would make similar objections to those in this letter to an independent Planning Inspector. Council response: Any future planning application on the site would be subject to a separate and subsequent process. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV108 (10 of 11) Name: Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 3) There is need for more diverse sports facilities in the area. This has long been sought by the surrounding community. The loss of this sports ground will be keenly felt by all local people. Council response: The use of the site for a school would include sports facilities which would be required to be made available for community use; as the site is currently vacant and in private ownership, a net gain in provision of facilities for public use would therefore result. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV108 (11 of 11) Name: Gerasimos & Irene Tomaras On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: To summarise: in 2010 the Council reviewed its strategy for Green Belt and MOL in search of evidence on which to base the above 'core' strategy. It specifically upheld as appropriate the MOL status of former Barclay' s Sports Ground. Given that population growth is no new phenomenon; the Council must have known about the various alternative sites for future demand for school buildings at the time. That cannot have changed in 5 (five) years. Council response: The established need for school places is clearly set out in the DPD and supporting documents. In order to meet this established need, para 4.18 confirms the Council's preference to build on sites which are policy compliant and also justifies inclusion of some MOL /open space sites in the shortlist. The shortlisting process, criteria and justifications for excluding/shortlisting sites are set out in the DPD documents. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV109 (1 of 1) Name: Ken Johnson On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I understand from a local resident that there has been an application to construct a new school on the site of the old Barclays Bank Sports Ground. Please would you confirm that this is true and if so why those living in close proximity to the site were not made aware of the application. Council response: The site is one of eight sites sought to be allocated for school use. Consultation has been undertaken in accordance with the Council's Statement of Community Involvement. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV110 (1 of 1) Name: Alexander Engler On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: We fully agree with the objections expressed by Prof Gillett, Tony Hitman and Daniel Hazan of Park View Road, to the construction of a new school in our street. We have been living here since February 1972 and have very much appreciated that it is a quiet street with very little traffic. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV111 (1 of 1) Name: Clive Kendall On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Please accept this letter as my objection to these plans. I confirm that I agree and support the views expressed to you by Professor Alan Gillett and his colleagues. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV112 (1 of 1) Name: Eldar Aghayev On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: With regards to your consultation on the Planning for Schools in Ealing Borough, I would agree with the letter dated 30th April 2015 from Prof. Gillett, Tony Hitman and Daniel Hazan of Park View Road. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV113 (1 of 1) Name: Juyee W Teo On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I have read what Professor Alan Gillett has written about the development of the former sports field of Barclays Bank at Park View Road for a site for building a new high school. I agree with the objections given by Professor Alan Gillett of Park View Road and I hope you would take my objections, as per Prof Gillett, seriously. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV114 (1 of 1) Name: Kishore and Chanchal Samtani On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I write with regards to Ealing Council plans for the development of the former Sports Field of Barclays for the site of a new Borough High School. We live in Park View Road and have just been notified of the proposed development. This is to notify you that we fully support and are in agreement with the arguments raised by Professor Gillett, Mr Tony Hitman and Mr Daniel Hazan of Park View Road against the proposed development. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV115 (1 of 1) Name: Kaoru Takeuchi On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Regarding the Barclays Sport ground development plan, I hereby confirm that I agree with Prf. Gillett, Tony Hitman and Daniel Hazan of Park View Road. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV116 (1 of 1) Name: Maurice & Valerie Peacock On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Although we were not provided with notice of the former Sports field of Barclays bank, we would like to strongly object to the council’s plans. The basis of objection has been provided by Professor Gillett, Mr Tony Hitman and Mr Daniel Hazan of Park View Road to which we are complete agreement. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV117 (1 of 1) Name: Keira Murphy On behalf of: Environment Agency Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: None of your proposed sites for new schools or extensions are in areas at risk of fluvial flooding from rivers (i.e. flood zone 2/3) which is good news. Our environmental requirements for planning applications are likely to be covered in your Local Plan anyway. The only other thing we might have suggested is that you check your Surface Water Management Plan to see if any of the school sites coincide with areas of surface water flood risk (called Critical Drainage Areas or Local Flood Risk Zones) because it might be that the schools development could help address the issues depending on the recommendations of the SWMP – however if your Council already has a strong policy on this elsewhere that’s likely to cover it. Council response: Noted. Ealing's Development Management DPD policy 5.12 - Flood Risk Management covers the Council's requirements in relation to flood risk. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV118 (1 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: In today's post I received notification for the first time of your proposals and also a note of the objections lodged by Prof Gillett, Tony Hitman & Daniel Hazan. I am surprised that you did not write to me at my above address [Woodside etc.] my wife and I own Flat X Thorn Tree Court and the lease is registered in our names at the above address at the Land Registry Office and indeed should be shown as such in your Council tax records. I think that the plans are flawed and strongly object to the proposals on the following grounds: Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV118 (2 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments:

1. For all the reasons given by Prof GiHett, Tony Hitman and Daniel Hazan; Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as response to representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV118 (3 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 2. It would destroy the peace and harmony of the road and surrounding areas. We enjoy the benefit of a Restrictive Covenant and I think your proposals are trying to drive a coach and horses through the law and so are illegal I unlawful; Council response: All impacts would need to be assessed as part of detailed consideration of a planning application, which would be a separate and subsequent process. Further details of the restrictive covenant referred to have been sought but no response received. There is no certainty at this stage that a covenant would restrict delivery of a school on this site. Proposed changes: No change.

Rep: PFS/PV118 (4 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 3. The roads etc. cannot support the traffic and congestion as well as the extra pollution as compared to the quiet etc. currently enjoyed; Council response: Assessment of impact as above. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV118 (5 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 4. There is not enough access to the site; Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change Rep: PFS/PV118 (6 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 5. It would be a substantial change to the character and nature of the whole area and so is contrary to the road being 'residential'; Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV118 (7 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 6. I believe that there is a requirement for more sports facilities in the area and so that is the sole use to which the land should be put; Council response: The use of the site for a school would include sports facilities which would be required to be made available for community use; as the site is currently vacant and in private ownership, a net gain in provision of facilities for public use would therefore result. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV118 (8 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 7. It is in the wrong part of the Borough to those who would be attending; Council response: The Demography background paper sets out the need for school places and sites have been shortlisted by criteria including location in area of greatest need. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV118 (9 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 8. You would have to put on extra policing for the area to deal with the school and the increase in traffic especially bearing in mind the prevalence of unsavory pedophilesthat are only just coming to the authorities' notice. This would place a burden on the taxpayers with unnecessary cost; Council response: Not a relevant planning matter Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV118 (10 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 9. It is Open Land and so you would have to try and justizy breaching this. This is itself a major problem for you and I object to the Council again trying to override this designation. There is nothing exceptional about building a school which could be sited elsewhere in the Borough nearer to the potential attendee pupils; Council response: The established need for school places is clearly set out in the DPD and supporting documents. In order to meet this established need, para 4.18 confirms the Council's preference to build on sites which are policy compliant and also justifies inclusion of some MOL /open space sites in the shortlist. The shortlisting process, criteria and justifications for excluding/shortlisting sites are set out in the DPD documents. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV118 (11 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 10. In seeking to redesignate the Land you would be incurring major legal expense again at the unnecessary cost to the taxpayer and is in breach of the Council's and Councilors' duty to keep costs to the minimum and not be flagrantly wasting taxpayer's funds; Council response: As above Proposed changes: No change Rep: PFS/PV118 (12 of 12) Name: Maxwell Nisner On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: 11. I think it would result in a major diminution in value in the flats specifically and the area in general and therefore would give rise to substantial compensation being payable which again is an unnecessary use of Council funds. Council response: Property values are not a relevant planning consideration. Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV119 (1 of 1) Name: E Abayomi On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: In agreement with Professor Alan Gillett, Chairman of Park Crest Residents Association, Mr Tony Hitman, Mr Daniel Hazan and Dr Robert Stansfield, I hereby submit that I own a property directly opposite the Barclays Bank Sports Field in question, and I have strong objections to this proposed Development. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as in representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV120 (1 of 1) Name: Akinwande Delano On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: In agreement with Professor Alan Gillett, Chairman of Park Crest Residents Association, Mr Tony Hitman, Mr Daniel Hazan and Dr Robert Stansfield, I hereby submit that I own a property directly opposite the Barclays Bank Sports Field in question, and I have strong objections to this proposed Development. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as in representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV121 (1 of 1) Name: MMA Ladipo On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: In agreement with Professor Alan Gillett, Chairman of Park Crest Residents Association, Mr Tony Hitman, Mr Daniel Hazan and Dr Robert Stansfield, I hereby submit that I own a property directly opposite the Barclays Bank Sports Field in question, and I have strong objections to this proposed Development. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as in representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV3/SUB (1 of 1) Name: Gillian Fensome On behalf of: Natural England Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: We have considered the contents of the updated HRA screening for Ealing’s Planning for Schools DPD and confirm that all the relevant sites and information, which we would expect to see are included in the document. We are satisfied that appropriate coding criteria have been used and that your screening analysis and conclusions are accurate. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: No change

Rep: PFS/PV105/SUB (1 of 4) Name: Stewart Murray On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Thank you for requesting an opinion on general conformity with the London Plan from the Mayorof London for the above Local Plan document. The Mayor has delegated authority to me to respond. As you will be aware, all development plan documents must be in general conformity with the London Plan under section 24 (1) (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. On 14 April 2015 the Mayor provided a letter informing Ealing Council that the Planning for School Publication Version DPD was not in general conformity with the London Plan, reference LDF09/LDD12/TT03. The letter identified four areas of improvement the Council should address for the Mayor to be able to consider the DPD to be in general conformity with the London Plan. The Council has responded to the Mayor’s letter with number of suggested changes to policy wording and the support text in its document title: Planning for Schools DPD (Publication version): Response to GLA reps dated 14 April 2015 (attached in Appendix 1 of this letter). It is my opinion that with these proposed changes the Council’s Planning for School Publication Version DPD is in general conformity with the London Plan 2015. Council response: Confirmation of general conformity with the London Plan 2015 noted. Proposed changes: Additional wording to Policy 1 and supporting text at para 4.22 and new para 5.11(a)

Rep: PFS/PV105/SUB (2 of 4) Name: Stewart Murray On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2, S- HAN1, S-EAL4 and S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: GLA Representation 2….permit only educational uses on the sites designated as MOL, open space and playing fields (sites ref: S-ACT2, S-HAN1, S-EAL4, and S-ACT7), [Sites are: S-ACT2 Acton Park Depot, S-HAN1 Eversheds Sports Ground, S-EAL4 Former Barclays Playing Fields, and S-ACT7 land r/o Twyford School] Further explanation This relates to the current wording of DPD Policy 1. The GLA have confirmed whilst the DPD uses the exceptional need for school places to justify the proposed allocation of sites designated as MOL for school provision (due to an absence of other appropriate sites), current wording of Policy 1 provides criteria to assess applications for other uses on those sites. GLA consider ‘the case rests on the need for school places and not on the function of the sites as MOL..open space and playing fields’ ‘…development for other uses is not supported by the Council’s evidence and would not be in conformity with the London Plan.’ LBE suggested change to policy wording / supporting text If sites S-ACT2, S-HAN1, S-EAL4, and S-ACT7 are not developed for educational use, development for other uses would not be justified and would not be in conformity with the London Plan Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Change as above

Rep: PFS/PV105/SUB (3 of 4) Name: Stewart Murray On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2, S- HAN1, S-EAL4 and S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: GLA Representation 3….allocate the minimum site area necessary to provide the required educational facilities for these sites (as referenced above), and LBE suggested change to policy wording / supporting text The final boundary will be required to reflect the minimum site area necessary to provide the required educational facilities for these sites and cause the least harm to the openness of the wider site. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Change as above

Rep: PFS/PV105/SUB (4 of 4) Name: Stewart Murray On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2, S- HAN1, S-EAL4 and S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: GLA Representation 4…explore the use of time limited de-designation to ensure that if these sites are not developed as schools within the plan period (to 2021) the sites revert to their current protected designation of MOL, open space and playing fields.’ LBE suggested change to policy wording / supporting text (a) In order to justify the retention of sites which are currently designated as MOL, open space and playing fields (sites ref S-ACT2, S- HAN1, S-EAL4 and S-ACT7) beyond the Plan period a review of the Plan will be needed at the appropriate time to establish whether their de-designation is required beyond the Plan period. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Change as above

Rep: PFS/PV122 (1 of 1) Name: Jack Thornborough TLT Solicitors On behalf of: 12 Park view Road Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: We have been instructed to inform you that our client supports the arguments put forward by Prof A Gillett, Mr T Hitman and Mr D Hazan in their letter and representation form addressed to you and Ealing Council's Planning Department Council response: Proposed changes:

Rep: PFS/PV72/SUB (1 of 2) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: I confirm that Historic England strongly supports the proposed changes, and we appreciate your response to our concerns by providing this greater clarity in relation to heritage in your future planning for school buildings in Ealing. Council response: Support to proposed changes noted Proposed changes: New para 2.12 to assist users of the DPD to sensitively manage change. Additional references to heritage assets and conservation areas in Policy 2, Appendix 1 mapping and Appx 2 document referencing.

Rep: PFS/PV72/SUB (2 of 2) Name: Katharine Fletcher On behalf of: Historic England Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: While the document that Katharine made reference to has now been withdrawn, it has been replaced with a web based resource. The following link should take you to that: https://www.historicengland.org.uk/advice/planning/local-heritage/historic-school- buildings/ This includes links to similar publications Practical considerations for the design and implementation of refurbishment projects of historic school buildings and Successful school refurbishment case studies, which you may wish to make specific reference to: https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/practical- considerations-refurbishment-historic-school-buildings/practical-considerations- design-implementation-refurbishment-historic-school-buildings.pdf/ https://content.historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/school- refurbishment-case-studies/school-refurbishment-case-studies-sep11.pdf/ Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Updated references to Historic England guidance added to Appendix 2

Rep: PFS/PV123 (1 of 1) Name: Rouben Galichian On behalf of: Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: Residing in the Thorn Tree Court, Park View Road, I must say that I am fully in agreement with the view expressed by Prof. Gillett, Tony Hitman and Daniel Hazan of of Park View Road, W5 and hope that the my view would be also be taken into consideration. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Response as in representation referred to.

Rep: PFS/PV124 (1 of 10) Name: Laura O'Gorman On behalf of: Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: The Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service (GLAAS) provides archaeological advice to boroughs in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and GLAAS Charter. The National Planning Policy Framework (Section 12) and the London Plan (2011 Policy 7.8) emphasise that the conservation of archaeological interest is a material consideration in the planning process. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF says that applicants should be required to submit appropriate desk-based assessments, and where necessary undertake field evaluation, to describe the significance of heritage assets and how they would be affected by the proposed development. This information should be supplied to inform the planning decision. Please see below our comments on the eight individual sites set out in Appendix 1 of the Planning for Schools DPD. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: Appx 1 site maps: current designations added for clarity including reference to archaeological areas as applicable, and Policy 2 additional supporting text (para 2.12) reference added to heritage assets

Rep: PFS/PV124 (2 of 10) Name: Laura O'Gorman On behalf of: Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT2 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: S-ACT2 – Acton Park Depot, The Vale, Acton Historic England ref: CLO17033 The site lies outside a borough designated archaeological priority area (APA), the nearest being the Central Acton APA which defines an area which has been settled continuously since 1222. A review of historic map evidence indicates that the site has remained relatively undeveloped apart from the construction of the existing buildings. An archaeological evaluation to the east of the site recorded archaeological evidence associated with the construction of the nearby houses in the 19th-century. Based on the above and in light of the small size of the proposed site, no further archaeological works are recommended. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV124 (3 of 10) Name: Laura O'Gorman On behalf of: Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT7 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: S-ACT7 – Land rear of Twyford High School, Uxbridge Road Historic England ref: CLO17034 The site lies outside a borough designated APA. To the north is the Creffield Road APA which defines an area where the Lynch Hill terrace gravels have revealed Middle Palaeolithic and Mesolithic tools, while to the south is the Central Acton APA. Appraisal of the Greater London Historic Environment Record identifies a find spot of a Palaeolithic Axe, however given the antiquarian nature of this record the validity of the findspot’s location is uncertain. Based on the above and in light of the small size of the proposed site, no further archaeological works are recommended. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV124 (4 of 10) Name: Laura O'Gorman On behalf of: Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Paragraph no or site ref: S-ACT8 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: S-ACT8 – Acton College, Gunnersbury Lane, Acton Historic England ref: CLO17035 The site falls partially within the Central Acton APA. The parish church, which was constructed around the early part of the 13th century and would have formed the focus for settlement, lies approximately 160m to the east of the site. The location of the site which is mostly set back from the historic roads, suggests that it probably lay on the edge of any settlement. In light of the above, further archaeological assessment is recommended as part of any future planning application. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV124 (5 of 10) Name: Laura O'Gorman On behalf of: Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: S-EAL4 – Former Barclays Sports Ground, Park View Road Historic England ref: CLO17036 The site lies outside any borough designated APAs, however in light of the large size of the site and that it has remains mostly undeveloped further archaeological assessment is recommended as part of any future planning application. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV124 (6 of 10) Name: Laura O'Gorman On behalf of: Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Paragraph no or site ref: S-EAL6 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: S-EAL6 – Former King Fahad Academy, Little Ealing Lane Historic England ref: CLO17037 The site lies within the Coldhawe Manor (Northfields Recreation Ground) Little Ealing APA. The manor house was first recorded in 1377 and, although it may not have been moated, it could have been surrounded by a medieval hamlet. The exact location of the manor house is uncertain however it is believed to have stood near Niagara and Blondin Avenue, approximately 160m to the north-west of the site. The main St Anne’s Convent School building (Place House) was constructed in the mid-18th century and is grade II listed. The house, which formed out of the Ealing Park Estate, did not become a convent until the 19th century when it was occupied by the Ladies of Nazareth. The site therefore has an interesting history and it is recommended that further archaeological assessment be carried out as part of any future planning applications. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV124 (7 of 10) Name: Laura O'Gorman On behalf of: Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Paragraph no or site ref: S-GNP2 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: S-GNP2 – Land adjacent to Greenford High School, Ruislip Road, Greenford Historic England ref: CLO17038 The site lies outside any borough designated APAs. The site remained undeveloped until the mid-20th century when the Greenford County Grammar School was constructed. The site is of limited archaeological interest and as such no further archaeological assessment would be required. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV124 (8 of 10) Name: Laura O'Gorman On behalf of: Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Paragraph no or site ref: S-HAN1 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: S-HAN1 – Eversheds Sports Ground, Hanwell Historic England ref: CLO17039 The site lies within the borough designated Osterley Park APA, which defines an area of cropmark evidence from early field systems and possible prehistoric barrows. In addition, large scale quarrying to the north of the site has recorded a number of prehistoric and Saxon finds. Historic cartographic sources indicate that the site has undergone little recent development. In light of the above it is recommended that further archaeological assessment be carried out as part of any future planning applications. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV124 (9 of 10) Name: Laura O'Gorman On behalf of: Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Paragraph no or site ref: S-HAN4 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: S-HAN4 – 42 Lower Boston Road, Hanwell Historic England ref: CLO17040 The site lies outside any borough designated APA. To the north is the Hanwell Village APA which defines the medieval settlement of Hanwell, while to the south is the Osterley Park APA. The site has undergone a couple of phases of development during the 19th and 20th-century. Based on the above and the small size of the site no further archaeological assessment would be required. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above Rep: PFS/PV124 (10 of 10) Name: Laura O'Gorman On behalf of: Greater London Archaeological Advisory Service Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: The nature and scope of archaeological assessment should be agreed with GLAAS and carried out by a developer-appointed archaeological practice before any decision on the planning application is taken. The ensuing archaeological report will need to establish the significance of the site and the impact of the proposed development. Once the archaeological impact of the proposal has been defined a recommendation will be made by GLAAS. The NPPF accords great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets and also non-designated heritage assets of equivalent interest. Heritage assets of local or regional significance may also be considered worthy of conservation. If archaeological safeguards do prove necessary, these could involve design measures to preserve remains in situ or where that is not feasible archaeological investigation prior to development. If a planning decision is to be taken without the provision of sufficient archaeological information then we recommend that the failure of the applicant to provide adequate archaeological information be cited as a reason for refusal. Please note that this response relates solely to archaeological considerations. If necessary, Historic England’s Development Management or Historic Places teams should be consultedseparately regarding statutory matters. Council response: Noted Proposed changes: As above

Rep: PFS/PV105/SUB2 (1 of 1) Name: Elliot Kemp On behalf of: GLA Paragraph no or site ref: Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: The additional text for Appendix 1 makes sense for clarity and the practical implementation of the policy Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: Appendix 1 introductory text added for clarification

Rep: PFS/PV125 (1 of 1) Name: Pak-Lim Wong On behalf of: Transport for London TfL Paragraph no or site ref: 4.4.23 Question 5: Question 6: Question 7: Other comments: TfL confirms that the proposed minor changes to the Planning for Schools DPD shown below with the additional text in red are welcomed. As acknowledged in the amended Planning for Schools DPD, the detailed assessment of transport issues and their mitigation will however still need to be addressed on a site by site basis at the planning application stage. 4.4.23 - …in terms of design, transport and other impacts. To enable a full assessment of detailed proposals for expansion or new provision at any of the sites, a range of supporting documents would be required with the planning application submitted, including a full Transport Assessment, School Travel Plan, Road Safety Audit, PERS and CERS audits. The mitigation of potential impacts would appropriately be secured through details of the development, planning conditions and Legal Agreements. Council response: Support noted Proposed changes: Para 4.23 additional text to confirm range of additional information required with any subsequent planning application on the sites.

For further copies of this document please contact: Planning Policy Ealing Council Perceval House 14/16 Uxbridge Road London W5 2HL Tel: 020 8825 5882 Email: [email protected] Visit: www.ealinginlondon.com

Designed & produced by Accession www.accessionpartnership.com