Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Ref : P/2013/5387

Address: BROADWAY STATION THE BROADWAY EALING W5 2NT

Ward: Ealing Broadway

Proposal: Redevelopment of station including the provision of a canopy over revised entrance, new facade, remodelled concourse, new lifts, remodelled staircases, platform canopies, waiting room and control building, waiting shelter, extended platforms at eastern end, footbridge at eastern end of platforms, lighting and associated works (Schedule 7 submission under the Act 2008)

Drawing numbers: WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000052; WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN- 000063; WSN1B-ALL-DRG-AEA-000066; WSN1B-ALL-DRG- AEA-000067; WSN1B-ALL-DRG-AEA-000068; WSN1B-ALL- DRG-AEA-000069; WSN1B-ALL-DRG-AEA-000071; WSN1B-ALL-DRG-AEA-000075; WSN1B-ALL-DRG-AEA- 000078; (received 20.11.2013), WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN- 000050 Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000051A Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000053A Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR- DRG-BEN-000055 Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000056A Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000057 Rev P01; WSN1C- EAR-DRG-BEN-000058 Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN- 000060 Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000061 Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000062 Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR-DRG- BEN-000064 Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000065 Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000066 Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR- DRG-BEN-000067 Rev P01; WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000068 Rev P01; and WSN1B-CNS-PLD-NCA-000011 Rev A01 (received 26.06.2014)

Type of Application: Crossrail Submission

Application Received: 03/12/2013 Revised: 26/06/2014

Page 1 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Report by: Peter Lee Executive Summary:

Recommendation: APPROVE subject to Conditions

This application relates to Ealing Broadway railway station which is located in central Ealing, to the east of The Broadway (the B455) and to the north of the . The station is currently served by First Grear Western and services from to stations to the west of London (Banbury, Oxford and Reading), to and to . The staion is also served by services by the lines. The existing station is accessed via steps from The Broadway which provide access to the station concourse level and then further steps to the platform level.

The application seeks approval of plans and specifications, reference number EAL/12/2/NR, under Schedule 7 of the Crossrail Act 2008, for permanent works at the site to facilitate the use of the site for Crossrail services.

The permanent works covered by this submission comprise:

 Modifications to the station to provide a new canopy to the forecourt area and a new facade treatment to the main entrance and remodelled concourse;  New lift shafts for the mezzanine level and platforms 1, 2/3 and 4;  Remodelled staircases to serve platforms 1 and 2/3;  New canopies for platforms 2/3 and 4;  New waiting room and control building on platform 2/3;  New waiting shelter on platform 4;  New footbridge at the eastern end of the platforms; and  Extensions to platforms 1, 2/3 and 4.

The Crossrail Act grants permission for the development, subject to the Council approving details of:

1/. The erection, construction, alteration or extension of any building or road vehicle park; the construction, alteration or extension of any terracing, cuttings, embankments or other earth works; the erection, construction, alteration or extension of any fences, walls or other barriers for visual or noise screening or dust suppression; 2/. The erection, construction, alteration or extension of any transformers, telecommunications masts or pedestrian accesses to railway lines; 3/. The erection, construction, alteration or extension of any fences or walls; 4/. The erection construction or installation of lighting equipment; 5/. The disposal of waste or spoil; and 6/. The excavation of bulk materias from borrow pits.

The plans and specifications submitted relate to construction works for the existing and new buildings, the erection or alteration of fences and the installation of lighting equipment. In determining the application the Council is required to be satisfied that the design and external appearance of the works preserves the local environment or local amenity; would prevent or reduce prejudicial effects on road safety or on the free flow of traffic in the local area; and, would preserve any sites of historic interest.

Page 2 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

The design and external appearance of the development has been amended since the original submission in November 2013 and now incorporates a more extensive canopy to the station forecourt area.

The main issues for consideration are whether the design and external appearance of the development preserve the local environment and local amenity and whether they would preserve the character of heritage assets in the vicinity of the site, namely Ealing Town Centre and Haven Green Conservation Areas, the statutory listed buildings at 38 Haven Green and 1 The Mall (the NatWest Bank) and the locally listed buildings in the vicinity. A number of representations have been received in respect of the initial submissions raising concerns about the design of the development and with regard to operational and accessibility issues. However, apart from design issues, including the materials to be used externally, the Council has no remit to consider other issues relating to the operation of the facility.

The design of the proposal has subsequently been amended, following extensive and detailed discussions with Council officers. A second round of public consultation was undertaken, which resulted in the receipt of two responses from local residents and two responses from amenity societies.

The proposal is now considered to be appropriate, subject to the submission of further detailed information about the materials to be used for the public interface of the built development.

The plans and specifications are now recommended for approval as the development of the Crossrail facility at Ealing Broadway is an integral part of London’s strategic transport proposals and the capital’s top priority for ensuring the delivery of the strategic objectives laid down in the development plan for the area. The amended design is considered to provide for a high quality development that would complement the character of the surrounding area and would provide a modified station building with greatly improved accessibility to accommodate future demand for the use of the station as Ealing Broadway becomes part of the Crossrail network. The appearance of the building would improve the general appearance of the area and provide a legible, accessible development with appropriate facilities and the capacity to handle the new 10-car, and in future 12-car, Crossrail trains.

Recommendation:

APPROVE with Conditions under Schedule 7 of the Crossrail Act 2008

Conditions/Reasons:

1. Time Limit 3 years - Full Permission

The development permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

REASON: In order to comply with the provisions of the Crossrail Act 2008.

2. Approved Plans

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with drawing title number(s) WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000050 Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000051A Rev P01, WSN1C- EAR-DRG-BEN-000052, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000053A Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN- 000055 Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000056A Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000057 Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000058 Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000059, WSN1C- EAR-DRG-BEN-000060 Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000061 Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG- Page 3 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

BEN-000062 Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000064 Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN- 000065 Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000066 Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000067 Rev P01, WSN1C-EAR-DRG-BEN-000068 Rev P01, WSN1B-ALL-DRG-AEA-000069, WSN1B-ALL- DRG-AEA-000071, WSN1B-ALL-DRG-AEA-000074, WSN1B-ALL-DRG-AEA-000075, WSN1B- ALL-DRG-AEA-000076, WSN1B-ALL-DRG-AEA-000078 and WSN1B-CNS-PLD-NCA-000011 Rev A01 unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: For the avoidance of doubt, and in the interests of proper planning.

3. Samples of Materials

Samples of the materials to be used for the external surfaces of the development, including the louvres and brickwork, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any part of the development is commenced, and this condition shall apply notwithstanding any indications as to these matters which have been given in this application. Development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details.

REASON: To ensure that the materials harmonise with the surroundings and that the external appearance of the works preserve the local environment, local amenity and sites of historic interest, in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 7.5(2) of the Crossrail Act 2008.

Informatives

1. No work should be carried out on the development site that may endanger the safe operation of the railway or the stability of 's structures and adjoining land. In particular, the demolition of buildings or other structures must be carried out in accordance with an agreed method statement. Care must be taken to ensure that no debris or other materials can fall onto Network Rail land. In view of the close proximity of these proposed works to the railway boundary the developer should contact Richard Selwood at Network Rail on [email protected] before work begins.

Background Information:

The Crossrail Act 2008 provides powers for the construction and operation of Crossrail. Schedule 1 to the Act describes the ‘scheduled works’ and Schedule 2 describes the associated works that the nominated undertaker will be authorised to carry out.

For this work Crossrail Limited (CRL) is the nominated undertaker.

The Act grants deemed planning permission for the works authorised by it, subject to the conditions set out in Schedule 7. Schedule 7 includes conditions requiring various matters to be the subject to the approval of the relevant local authority.

This is therefore a different planning regime to that which usually applies in (i.e. the Town and Country Planning Act) and is different in terms of the nature of submissions and the issues that the local planning authorities (LPA’s) can have regards to in determining requests for approval.

There are two types of submission that can be made by the nominated undertaker under Schedule 7:

 Permanent works; and

Page 4 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

 Temporary works.

The details of the permanent works that will be submitted are commonly referred to as ‘plans and specifications’ (reflecting the description within paragraphs 6, 15 and 21 of Schedule 7), whilst the temporary works details to be submitted are commonly referred to as ‘construction arrangements’ (reflecting the description in paragraphs 7, 16 and 22 of Schedule 7). This application seeks approval of plans and specifications reference number EAL/12/2/NR under Schedule 7 of the Crossrail Act.

Schedule 7 of the Crossrail Act, in paragraphs 6 to 10, specifies the conditions of the deemed planning permission. Paragraph 6(1) confirms that:

“To the extent that development consists of any operation or work mentioned in column (1) of the table in sub-paragraph (4), it shall be carried out in accordance with plans and specifications for the time being approved by the local planning authority at the request of the nominated undertaker.”

(1) (2) Operation or work Grounds 1. Construction works That the design or external appearance of the works (a) The erection, construction, alteration or ought to be modified – extension of any building (except for (a) to preserve the local environment or local anything within (b) or (c) or item 2 or 4) amenity; or road vehicle park. (b) to prevent or reduce prejudicial effects on (b) The construction, alteration or extension road safety or on the free flow of traffic in the of any terracing, cuttings, embankments local area; or or other earth works. (c) to preserve a site of archaeological or (c) The erection, construction, alteration or historic interest or nature conservation value; extension of any fences, walls or other and is reasonably capable of being so modified. barriers (including bunds) for visual or That the development ought to, and could noise screening or dust suppression. reasonably, be carried out elsewhere within the limits of the land on which the works of which it forms part may be carried out under this Act.

2. Minor construction works That the design or external appearance of the works The erection, construction, alteration or ought to be modified to preserve the local extension of any transformers, environment or local amenity, and is reasonably telecommunications masts or pedestrian capable of being so modified. accesses to railway lines. That the development ought to, and could reasonably, be carried out on land elsewhere within the relevant limits.

3. Fences or walls That the development ought to, and could The erection, construction, alteration or reasonably, be carried out on land elsewhere within extension of any fences or walls (except for the relevant limits. anything within item 1(c)).

4. Artificial lighting That the design of the equipment, with respect to The erection, construction or installation of the emission of light, ought to be modified to lighting equipment. preserve the local environment or local amenity, and is reasonably capable of being so modified. That the development ought to, and could

Page 5 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

reasonably, be carried out elsewhere within the limits of land on which the works of which it forms part may be carried out under this Act.

5. Waste and soil disposal That – The disposal of waste or spoil. (a) the design and external appearance of disposal sites on land within the relevant limits, (b) the methods by which such sites are worked, or (c) the noise, dust, vibration or screening arrangements during the operation of such sites, ought to be modified, and are reasonably capable of being modified. That – (a) to preserve the local environment or local amenity, (b) to prevent or reduce prejudicial effects on road safety or on the free flow of traffic in the local area, or (c) to preserve a site of archaeological or historic interest or nature conservation value, the development ought to be carried out on land elsewhere within the relevant limits, and is reasonably capable of being so carried out.

6. Borrow pits That – The excavation of bulk materials from borrow (a) the design or external appearance of borrow pits. pits on land within the relevant limits, (b) the methods by which such pits are worked, or (c) the noise, dust, vibration or screening arrangements during the operation of such pits, ought to be modified, and are reasonably capable of being modified. That – (a) to preserve the local environment or local amenity; (b) to prevent or reduce prejudicial effects on road safety or on the free flow of traffic in the local area, or (c) to preserve a site of archaeological or historic interest or nature conservation value, the development ought to be carried out on land elsewhere within the relevant limits, and is reasonably capable of being so carried out.

Page 6 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Paragraph 6(2) of the Crossrail Act states that:

“The local planning authority may, on approving a plan or specification for the purposes of this paragraph, specify any respect in which it requires there to be submitted for approval additional details of the operation or work which gives rise to the need for approval under sub-paragraph (1).”

Site Description:

Ealing Broadway Station is located within Ealing Metropolitan Centre and is identified as a Development Site (EAL2 Ealing Broadway Crossrail Station, The Broadway, Ealing, W5) on the Local Plan Policies Map (2013).

The station entrance and building are located at street level on The Broadway (the B455) within a parade of commercial premises in retail or office use, known as New Ealing Broadway. This section of The Broadway constitutes an overbridge structure which crosses perpendicular to the Paddington to Reading railway line. The station is currently served by First Great Western services toward Reading, Oxford and Banbury and to Greenford and by Heathrow Connect services to Heathrow Airport.

The station building also facilitates access to the London Underground platforms serving the Central Line and .

There are four platforms served by services and five platforms served by London Underground services. Pedestrian access to the platforms is currently via a series of stepped access routes.

The station complex contains ticket offices and ticket machines and retail units accessed by steps from The Broadway. At platform level there are further retail units and toilets, waiting rooms and passenger shelters.

The station forms part of the lower ground floor of the nine-storey Villiers House structure, with the entrance set in between retail units facing onto the forecourt. Villiers House tower is sited above the northern most retail units to the north of the station entrance, with a podium covering over the rest of the structure, including the station.

The existing structure is steel framed reinforced concrete, with glazing at street level and cladding to the tower element.

Currently the entrance to the station is through an opening in the façade, with steps leading down to the concourse, which is set at a lower level than the street.

Access to platform level is gained by steps from a walkway adjoined to the concourse, with 5 sets of stairs providing access to the various platforms.

At present there is a partial canopy on platform 2/3 and a waiting room beside the main steps accessing platform 4.

Page 7 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

The Proposal:

The permanent works the subject of this submission comprise the following;

 Modifications to the station building to provide a new canopy and façade treatment to the main entrance and remodeled concourse;  New lift shafts for the mezzanine and platforms 1, 2/3 and 4;  Re-modelled staircases for platforms 1 and 2/3;  New canopies for platforms 2/3 and 4;  New waiting room and control building on platform 2/3;  New waiting shelter on platform 4;  New footbridge at the eastern end of the platforms; and  Extensions to platforms 1, 2/3 and 4.

The original submission, received on 20 November 2013, was considered to be inappropriate in design terms for the following reasons:

 Disjointed design language that failed to integrate the adjoining shops and Villiers House entrance to the north into the design, leading to poor continuity between the existing and new frontages;  Unattractive and ineffective canopy form and design;  Insufficient quality and detail of the façade with poor articulation, rhythm and hierarchy between elements, too much glass finish/transparency and signage poorly integrated into the design;  Mezzanine did not integrate into the design and negatively affected views from the street and platforms; and  Internal lifts instead of escalators made access to platforms more restricted.

Following meetings with the applicants amended proposals were submitted on 26 June 2014 which have substantially changed the front elevation of the proposal. The most significant design change has been to the proposed canopy feature, which has been enlarged to produce a more legible and distinctive architectural element that would provide more effective cover. A wide, curved, double-height canopy is now proposed extending across most of the width of the forecourt, and covering the full depth of the forecourt. The canopy would be 7.3 metres high, 13 metres deep at the curved point outside the station’s entrance and would be set back 3.5 metres from the adjacent building to the south, to provide light to the 1st floor windows overlooking the forecourt on the flank elevation of that building. It would also be set back 2 metres from the adjacent building to the north of the forecourt.

The canopy would be attached to the building line, be of a steel frame construction and be supported by 11 steel columns at regular intervals. Columns would be positioned in line with the face of the adjacent Victorian frontages, improving the visual continuity between new and existing buildings. A hardwood timber soffit to the canopy extending into the concourse area is intended to soften the steel profile, bringing warmth and texture to this large, visually significant surface and complimenting the green nature of Haven Green. Three rooflights would distinguish further the space outside the station’s entrance and match those inside the concourse. A brise soleil projecting 2.7 metres beyond the line of columns and the face of the existing buildings would form the street edge of the canopy and a continuous LED lighting strip would add further interest to and increase the visibility of the structure. The submitted lighting strategy also proposes column mounted luminaires directing light beams up and down.

Page 8 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

The main front elevation of the station building has also been amended and further articulated. The curtain wall to the station’s entrance leading into the double height concourse would be set back 1.5 metres from the adjoining forward retail faces. Clerestory glazing would be provided above the shopfronts and up to the height of the canopy to give continuity with the rest of the façade and would be slightly recessed from the face of the retail units.

The structural frame of the façade has been more expressed so the proportions of each bay would be more noticeable. This would provide a clearer hierarchy and distinction between each retail bay and between these and the station’s entrance.

In terms of external materials, the amount of glazing on the façade has been reduced, but would still be quite substantial. However, within each glazed bay fritted glass would be used above the clear glass shopfronts, which would help to subdivide each bay and would create a patterned texture to the glass. The frit masking the structure behind would also be read differently from that on the clerestory, which would allow greater light levels to the forecourt. Signage for the shops would be placed below the frit at a different level from the larger, more important, station sign.

The amended proposal also introduces bronze anodized metal panels to the recessed service/emergency entrances to the south of the retail units and to the north of Villiers House and these would now provide breaks to the glass and material variation. The internal flank walls of the concourse, which would be seen from the exterior, are also proposed to be clad in bronze anodized metal panels, in this case with a relief feature design.

The footbridge enclosure, to the rear elevation of the station, would be completed with a galvanized steel frame with clear glass to the upper panels and anodized bronze on the bottom panels to match the station flank walls. The design language of the remodelled staircases, platform canopies, waiting room and control building would complement the appearance of the station and canopy.

The proposed works have been designed to provide a modified station building with improved access to accommodate future demand as Ealing Broadway becomes part of the Crossrail Network. Landscaping and works to the forecourt area which would be used as a worksite will be subject to a Site Restoration Scheme to be agreed with the Council and is not for approval as part of this Plans and Specifications submission.

The Site Restoration Scheme will be produced in accordance with the Ealing Broadway Interchange Study authored by the Council’s Highways Department and other Council led designs for the area. Relevant Planning History

Reference Proposal Decision Date

04013 Erection of railway station with shops and four- Approved 13.07.1959 storey block of offices over (Outline)

04013/DDR Reconstruction of station Approved 29.11.1960

04013/B Erection of eight-storey block over station Approved 19.07.1962 comprising shops and seven-storeys of offices with ancillary car park (Outline)

Page 9 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

04013/C Erection of ten-storey office block and detached car Approved 11.11.1963 park

04013/C/D Reconstruction of Ealing Broadway Station involving Approved 17.06.1966 erection of two-storey building comprising fourteen shops with ten-storey office building and layout of detached car park

P/2013/4103 Details of construction arrangements (handling of Approved 14.11.2013 spoil and topsoil, storage sites, screening, lighting, dust suppression and mud on highways) at work- sites throughout the Borough (submission under Schedule 7 of the Crossrail Act, 2008)

The last application related to 9 sites throughout the borough relating to all 5 proposed Crossrail stations in Ealing’s administrative area. 3 of these sites related to the Ealing Broadway station development and comprised: the east side of Haven Green; the station forecourt; and, land on the west side of College Court, The Mall.

Consultation:

Public Consultation - Summary Neighbour Initiated on the 12/12/2013 (expired on 02/01/2014). 341 surrounding residential and Notification: commercial occupiers notified.

Advertised In the local press and by a site notice on the 20/12/2013 (Expired on the 10/01/2014). Local Press:

Initial Consultation:

223 responses were received in response to the initial notification raising the following summarised comments/points of objection:

Design - Proposal is bleak and dated, - Opportunity should not be lost – it is once in a lifetime, it is worth incurring building works and chaos to do the works properly, chance of a super station - Should enhance the area architecturally, should be appealing and welcoming, - Proposals are cosmetic, station design is critical to future of Ealing, design is not sufficient for the quality of the built environment in Ealing, will leave a scar on the area and it’s transport links, needs to enhance area, Ealing deserves more, totally inappropriate as gateway to Ealing, should raise profile of borough, will create a hotchpotch of uncoordinated design elements, good design vital for social and economic development of the borough - Proposals are lower in quality than original proposals agreed in parliament, the design from 2007/2008 was much better, original design showed redevelopment of whole site, original design showed escalators, original design showed the removal of the existing building and the provision of an airy deck, original design showed removal of Villiers House

Page 10 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

- Design evolution from original appears to be simply cost-cutting - Proposed materials will quickly deteriorate - Should provide a beautiful open space - Only the best and latest designs and functions will suffice - Design is hideous, ‘Flat-pack’ design, appalling design, cheap, plain, dull, unimaginative, utilitarian, cost reduction, dismal, disgraceful, devoid of architectural merit, tatty, cheap, materials inappropriate, original and contemporary architecture should be built, mundane, banal, ill-considered, merely cosmetic, bling, brutalist - Jumble of styles inside station - Canopy is 1970s in style and unattractive and should extend the whole length of the retail units, canopy will provide little shelter in poor weather, canopy will create poor microclimate in terms of funneling wind, canopy has inappropriate scale, canopy will be magnet for crime and anti-social behaviour, eyesore, inappropriate scale, unnecessary - Impact of design on conservation areas - Impact on Haven Green - Canopies should extend the length of the platforms, inadequate lengths, there should be no gaps between canopies - Much better designed stations at Whitechapel, Farringdon, Woolwich, Abbey Wood, Canary Wharf, Ealing Broadway appears much cheaper than other station designs - Interior will be unpleasant - Proposed station will have to last many years, new station is a long term investment - Prominent and iconic signage required - Support for Richard Rogers’ criticisms of design - New station looks fine

Officers’ Response: The design issues raised were considered to be of some weight and the submission has subsequently been amended to secure design improvements that are now considered to constitute a high quality, sustainable development.

Facilities - More stylish, better equipped station with more facilities should be provided, should be more functional, proposals appear to be money-saving - Should be more retail/café units - Much reduced facilities under proposals - Waiting rooms are unimaginatively designed, should incorporate a café - Waiting room should not be hidden behind control room for security reasons - Toilets should be provided, including disabled toilets - Proposed station is too small - Proposals not an improvement - No garden - Why aren’t glass doors being proposed to prevent suicides

Officers’ Response: The facilities to be provided within the station itself are a matter for Crossrail, Network Rail and other rail operators. The submitted proposals are indicative and would provide generous areas for retail provision and other facilities.

Integration - A more comprehensive development should occur - Station should be better integrated with area - Submission does not assess impact on Haven Green and surrounding area - Should be a unified design across whole frontage, including kebab shop - Proposals should improve Haven Green Page 11 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Officers’ Response: The amended submission is considered to adequately address these issues.

Congestion - Proposals will not ease existing congestion problems, more circulation space should be provided, better links to tube platforms, health and safety issues from congestion, access has been downgraded, station is dangerous at present and this has not been addressed in proposals, has a proper risk assessment been carried out? Little understanding of how people move - Insufficient space on concourse - No explanation how users will pass safely through station - The proposals will not ease congestion outside station, current mess of pedestrians, vehicles buses, taxis and cycles will not be dealt with on-site but merely moved off-site, congestion outside station will worsen, submission does not mention the current muddle outside station - Secondary access point should be provided to ease congestion, old District Line entrance should be reopened - Housing and hotel development in area will further increase pressure on congested station, proposals do not cater for population growth - No passenger forecasts provided, foot traffic models should be produced - Movement of elderly/infirm/disabled/people with pushchairs is an issue, people with luggage

Officers’ Response: The proposal has been designed to accommodate predicted passenger flows at the station following the introduction of Crossrail services. The concourse area would be larger than at present and all Crossrail platforms would be fully accessible utilising stairs or lifts. The layout of the forecourt area is not part of this submission, but the Council is preparing detailed proposals for this area.

Transport - Escalators should be provided (numerous objections), as were envisaged in 2007, would ease pedestrian traffic flow, escalators have been scrapped from original designs, not providing escalators is a health and safety issue, escalators would ease congestion, escalators necessary for carrying luggage - Insufficient lifts proposed, location of lifts at top of stairs is dangerous - Lifts should be large enough to carry bikes, luggage, prams and wheelchairs, lifts should meet European standards in terms of size - Footbridge across tracks should be provided - Poor/no step-free access - Drop-off facility should be provided (numerous objections), no setting down for disabled people, British Standards require a designated set-down point with level access and covered if possible, shared-access forecourt should be provided (such as at ), bollards should be lowerable for blue badge holders - Lack of short-term parking - There should be no cycle parking on forecourt, forecourt should be kept clutter-free, clutter impacts on movement of disabled people - Should be an integrated transport hub, integrated bus station, interchange - Cycle parking should be provided in the station - Cycle gulleys should be provided on the staircases - Access to staff entrance, the rear emergency fire escape route to the cycle sheds of the Council buildings should be maintained for the duration of the works - Accessibility for wheelchair users boarding trains from platforms should be truly accessible - Where is access promised beside NatWest bank? Extra entrance on Uxbridge Road would be useful, additional exit from station would be useful Page 12 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

- Crossing facilities should be provided outside the station - Taxi rank should be provided

Officers’ Response: The operation of the station is not a matter for consideration by the local planning authority under the terms of the Crossrail Act. Whilst the Hybrid Bill scheme did show escalators as part of a scheme that had a new footbridge, the applicants have confirmed that design development has revealed that an escalator to platform 2/3 is un-workable as there is insufficient platform width and no scope to widen the platform. An escalator to platform 4 has never been considered using the existing footbridge and is not feasible. In any event, escalator access would be likely to compromise fire safety as the platform evacuation scenario relies on stairs only. A footbridge across the tracks is to be provided. The number, location and size of the proposed lifts are considered to be acceptable and step-free access for all will be available. The layout of the forecourt area is not an element to be considered in this submission, but will be the subject of detailed Council designed proposals.

Emergency Exit - Impossible to tell from plans where the emergency exit route (via the new footbridge) leaves the site, plans state NR car park which does not exist, concerns if exit is to College Court (residential block) car park

Officers’ Response: The emergency exit route is shown on detail in the amended proposals. The route is via the car park to Carmelita House, 21-22 The Mall, a health/community services office building.

Amenity of Neighbours - Noise from extension of platforms to residential properties – these should be extended to the west away from these properties, as well as for access and congestion reasons

Officers’ Response: The platform extensions can only be carried out to the east of the site as the existing support structures for the buildings above the lines and The Broadway preclude any westward extension.

Consultation Process/Submission - Legal status of application, given the changes since the original design which was originally approved by parliament - Disappointment of regular commuter of not being consulted on plans, insufficient consultation, plans have not been well publicised, public consultation should have been carried out over a long period of time, public have been excluded from design process, lack of transparency - Designers should work with local cyclist and pedestrian groups - Proposed plans and Design and Access Statement are at insufficient resolution to be legible, sharper pdf’s should be posted on the Council’s website before consultation deadline - Plans were not uploaded on to the Council’s website until 18/12/13 - Consultation period ran over Christmas/New Year, insufficient time to respond - The Design and Access Statement is vague and confusing, it should have included a plan or photomontage of station combined with the forecourt, no illustrations of proposals, DAS does not mention adjacent listed buildings, conservations areas, public open space, metropolitan centre or retail frontages, no visuals of interior of station - No models shown - Why no traffic impact statement? - Council should have lobbied for more radical scheme, should have been more active in design, should ensure quality design, Council should have more influence over proposals - CABE should be involved, should be a Design Review - Poor quality of submission documents make it difficult to interpret proposals and make comment, poorly presented, more detailed drawings required, insufficient visuals of interior and Page 13 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

exterior - Design and Access Statement is vague and confusing - No mention of land use and heritage designations in area or policies - Proposals ignore planning law - Proposal description too generalised

Officers’ Response: Appropriate consultation is considered to have been carried out in respect of both the original proposals and the amended submission and accorded with statutory requirements. The submitted documentation is considered to be satisfactory and to provide sufficient information to process and determine the application. A Traffic Impact Assessment was not considered necessary in respect of this highly accessible town centre location (Public Transport Accessibility Level of 6b – Excellent).

Second Round of Public Consultation:

Following the receipt of amended proposals, on 26 June 2014, a further round of neighbour notification was undertaken. On this occasion 422 surrounding residential and commercial occupiers notified. This second round of consultation was initiated on 8 July 2014. In addition a further site notice and Public Notice in the local paper were displayed. The expiry date for the receipt of representations was 1 August 2014.

As a result of this re-consultation one representation has been received from a resident of Hazel Court, Hamilton Road who has stated that she is very concerned that the construction works will mean months of sleepless nights for residents near the station/train tracks and has asked that night-time works be avoided as much as possible and that advance warning of night-time working is provided.

Officers’ Response:

Whilst this is not a matter for consideration for a plans and specifications request for approval, the applicants have stated that the works will be undertaken in accordance with the Crossrail Environmental Minimum Requirements and the matters as approved by the Council in the Schedule 7 Construction Arrangements approval (application reference number: P/2013/4103). The construction code sets out the core working hours from 08:00 to 18:00 on weekdays and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturday. In accordance with the Code only non-disturbing preparatory work, repairs or maintenance will normally be carried out on Saturday afternoons or Sundays between 09:00 and 17:00. The nominated undertaker will adhere to these core working hours for each site as far as reasonably practicable and where feasible, operations anticipated to cause disturbance would be limited to these hours. Working outside these times will be subject to the s61 process under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.

A further representation has also been received from a resident of Devonshire Road, Ealing re- iterating her previous comments and providing the following general comments:

 The drawings in the submitted Design & Access Statement are confusing and don’t show the whole station;  The reasons for not providing escalators are not accepted. There would appear to be enough room to provide both steps and escalators as are available at other, less busy, stations. The steps proposed are unsafe as pedestrians entering and exiting are not segregated;  The existing surface car park should be used to provide a safe drop-off point for disabled people and the provision of cycle stands;  The ‘mini Holland cycle route (near the Metro Bank)’ implies it is a route to cycle stands on the

Page 14 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

forecourt. Cycle stands should not be provided on the forecourt and it should be reserved for pedestrians only and kept free of clutter;  The design of the station frontage does not reflect either the borough’s Victorian or Edwardian heritage or its cultural heritage. It is all rather bland and uninteresting;  The proposals do not mention removing the booths at the bottom of the central steps which are an eyesore and clutter up the place;  The Council should purchase the old entrance to the station to provide a direct access to platforms 4-9;  There should be a ‘turn up and go’ facility for wheelchair users;  Insufficient consultation carried out; and  Mayoral CIL contributions too low to finance proposal.

Officers’ Response:

The applicants have stated that escalators will not be provided as part of the proposal. In land use planning terms there is no requirement for escalators to be provided as long as the proposed development is accessible to all. The provision of lift access from the concourse to the station platforms will ensure this is the case. The existing surface car park is outside of the proposals covered by this submission. The layout of the forecourt area is also outside of the scope of this application, but the Council’s proposals for this area are subject to on-going refinement and public consultation. The design of the station frontage is considered to complement the character of the area and is considered to represent an appropriate design response to increase the presence and visibility of the station entrance. The current ‘booths’ on the platforms are not shown to be retained, but the layout of this area is a matter for the station operator and is not for determination as part of the current submissions. The purchase of the old entrance to the station is outside of the scope of the Crossrail proposals. The detailed ‘operation’ of the station is a matter for Network Rail and the service providers. The level of consultation carried out is considered to accord with Government guidance and the Council’s adopted procedures. The matter of Mayoral CIL expenditure is not considered to be relevant to the determination of the application.

External Consultation List:

Initial Consultation:

Responses received in respect of original submission were received from:

Friends of Haven Green:

- Canopy will fail to provide shelter and will not contribute to the character of Haven Green; - Drop-off facility should be maintained increased footfall may damage Haven Green, a landscape survey should be undertaken; - Character of Haven Green should be preserved by proposals.

Officers’ Response: The canopy design has been amended and is now considered to be acceptable in design terms. The layout and design of the forecourt area is the subject of a separate design process being undertaken by the Council. The character of Haven Green will, it is considered, be preserved or enhanced by the proposal.

Page 15 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Ealing Civic Society:

- Design evolution has merely been cost-cutting - Proposal is radically different to original - Minimalist design - No footbridge - Network Rail have been unwilling to discuss changes - Consultation over Christmas period reduces time for consultation - Impact of proposal on conservation area and adjoining building - Design is unattractive - Canopy is clumsy and industrial in character, unrelated to neighbouring buildings - Other Crossrail stations are better designed - No figures provided for passenger numbers - Drop-off facilities necessary - Proposals should be independently reviewed

Officers’ Response: The design of the proposal has been amended and is considered to be acceptable. The forecourt design is subject to a separate process. Appropriate information about passenger numbers has been utilised in the design process.

Haven Green Conservation Area Advisory Panel:

- Agree with Lord Rogers’ on proposal - Will have major impact on conservation area - Application is insufficient - Insufficient regard to impact on heritage asset – a Heritage Statement should be submitted - Insufficient information on materials for canopy and should be more visuals - Proposals are worse than existing

Officers’ Response: The amended proposals are considered to be acceptable. No Heritage Statement is required to be submitted with this type of application.

Ealing Common/Town Centre/Creffield Area Conservation Area Advisory Panel:

- Object on conservation grounds - Interchange does not work at present and will have greater number of people - No escalators, lack of lifts, safety implications - Other entrances should be opened (such as old District Line entrance) Design of façade

Officers’ Response: These issues have been responded to above.

GRASS Residents’ Association (Gordon Road):

- No escalators or footbridges, which would impact on disabled access - No estimates of increased passenger numbers - Poor state of pavements in area - Increased volume of traffic and pollution due to an increase in users at the station - Less expenditure in Ealing than with other Crossrail stations - Lost opportunity

Officers’ Response: These issues have generally been addressed above. The poor state of Page 16 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03 pavements in the area is not a matter than the Crossrail proposal can address.

Ealing Business Improvement District (BID):

No response to date.

Ealing Chamber of Commerce:

No response to date.

20th Century Society:

No response to date.

TfL/London Underground:

No objection in principle. However, requires that the applicant maintain on-going liaison with London Underground Ltd.

Officers’ Response: Noted. Network Rail has confirmed that liaison is on-going and will be maintained.

Network Rail:

No objection in principle subject to the safe operation of the railway and the protection of Network Rail’s adjoining land.

Officers’ Response: Noted. An appropriate informative is recommended to be imposed on any permission granted, should the Committee be minded to approve the submission.

Fire Brigade:

No response to date.

Crime Prevention Design Advisor:

No response to date.

Ward Councillors (Conservative Group):

- No escalators as originally envisaged - No new eastern access point to station - Design of frontage and canopy are poor and will impact on adjacent conservation areas - No details of forecourt, no details of drop-off facilities

Officers’ Response: These issues have been responded to above.

Environment Agency:

No objections or comments.

Page 17 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Central Ealing Resident’s Association:

- Given local heritage assets, a design of the highest standard should be provided - Proposal does not adequately address the Haven Green Conservation Area Appraisal/Management Plan, Shopfront and Advertisement Policy and Design Guidance, Council’s draft SPD for Shopfront Design - Issues with frontage; proportion of glazed area is unsympathetic with neighbouring frontage, stallrisers should be incorporated, fanlights should be incorporated, sliding door proposed is not found in existing facades, entrance and canopy should be sited to left of the frontage, materials are not in keeping with area. - Poor quality overall design - Impact on Haven Green Conservation Area - Inadequate consideration given to gateway/landmark significance of station

Officers’ Response: The design changes submitted are considered to have adequately addressed these issues.

Central Ealing Neighbourhood Forum:

- proposal should blend in with and enhance area, enhance local amenity and conservation area, contribute to local character - Station is a gateway to Ealing - proposal vital to economy of Ealing - very few visuals included - local art should be secured by condition - lack of facilities for passenger drop-off, coach parking, servicing of station - no passenger forecasts submitted - no details of traffic flows in area - secure cycle parking should be provided - insufficient discussions with locals

Officers’ Response: These issues have been responded to above.

West Ealing Centre Neighbourhood Forum:

- Lack of drop-off/pick-up facilities - Poor/no step-free access - Lack of additional entry/exit routes for increased number of passengers, old District Line entrance should be opened - Extension of platforms should be to west to avoid noise to residential properties and to allow entry and access to be to the middle of the platforms, thereby easing congestion, to allow access to Arcadia site/Springbridge Road/Haven Green - Canopy is unattractive, will not provide shelter, waste of money - No escalators - Should be an integrated transport system - Poor quality images in submission - No passenger forecasts - No community engagement - Public consultation over Christmas is inappropriate

Officers’ Response: Issues previously responded to.

Page 18 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Kingsdown Residents Association:

- New plans look unfit for increase in footfall - Unclear whether Crossrail or LBE’s plan - Insufficient advertisement/consultation, no exhibition - Original plans put to parliament are very different - Insufficient lifts - No drop-off facility, impact on disabled people - On-site cycle parking required - Proposals should seek to address congestion issues in the area - Design of canopy - Jumble of styles - Impact on adjoining conservation areas - Ealing Station is being redesigned on the cheap in comparison to other stations

Officers’ Response: Issues previously responded to.

Ealing Cycle Campaign:

- Disappointing that no provision has been made within the station for cycle parking - Secure cycle parking required - Station needs to cater for cycles being taken on to platform (for train services) - Proposals need to meet the needs of persons with reduced mobility - Lifts of insufficient size - Review of lift provision required

Officers’ Response: The Council is designing proposals for the station forecourt, which may provide cycle facilities if deemed necessary and appropriate. Nevertheless, there is significant cycle parking/storage in the vicinity in the cycle hub on Haven Green. The design of the proposal does allow for cycle access to the platforms. The lifts to be provided could accommodate cycles, but the internal ‘operation’ of the station is a matter for the operator.

Ealing Friends of the Earth:

- design is very different of the original put before parliament - exterior of station will not enhance surrounding conservation areas or reflect the style of neighbouring buildings - other Crossrail stations are better designed - insufficient consultation - no escalators proposed - should be independently reviewed by a body like CABE

Officers’ Response: The amended design is considered to have addressed the design issues raised. The consultation issue has been addressed above.

Second Round of Consultation:

Following the consultation exercise in respect of the amended proposals (further) responses have been received from:

Page 19 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Ealing Civic Society:

 design of the station external canopy is greatly improved;  previous concerns about the relationship between the canopy and the adjacent buildings have been solved by the amended design;  an excessive number of support columns are being provided – it is hoped it may be possible to reduce the number of columns, especially the column in front of the entrance doors;  the i-beam structure of the canopy support columns looks basic and unfinished, would prefer a more substantial appearance;  it is not clear how the retail units will be serviced.

Officers’ Response: Noted. Nine columns are proposed, equally spaced along the canopy frontage. There is no column outside the entrance doors, but one either side, and well in advance of, the doorway openings. The i-beam structure will be appropriately finished in accordance with further details of external materials required to be submitted by condition that it is recommended be imposed should permission be granted. Servicing of the retail units will be via a service access to the south of the development.

Ealing Cycle Campaign:

 re-iterate their previous comments;  again request larger lifts be provided, at least for platforms 2/3 and 4, in accordance with the guidance for lift sizes included in the draft London Cycling Design Standards published by TfL in June 2014.

Officers’ Response: Network Rail have responded that: “Lift shaft sizes…have been designed to meet capacity and Persons with Reduced Mobility Standards. With the smallest sized lift used at Ealing Broadway providing capacity for 16 persons, which will also fit a bicycle diagonally with the lift on Platform 2/3 slightly longer. Lift shafts to Platform 4-9 could not be made any bigger due to the constraints of the width of the platform and the Villiers House structure adjacent. Further to this, all public lifts are designed to be through lifts to aid use and reduce having to turn within the car. The draft London Cycling Design Standards document is currently out for consultation and is not an adopted set of standards with the section referenced only referring to lifts allowing access to cycle parking areas, of which there will be none within the station. Cycle carriage on the Crossrail Route will be in accordance to the Crossrail information paper E02.”

Environment Agency:

 identify flood risk as the only constraint at the site from their point of view, and specifically that the main flood risk issue is the management of surface water run-off and ensuring that drainage from the development does not increase flood risk either on-site or elsewhere.

Officers’ Response: Noted. Network Rail have responded that: “The issue of flooding is not within the grounds for consideration under Schedule 7 of the Crossrail Act; however, the Environment Agency is a significant stakeholder within the Crossrail project and extensive discussions are undertaken with the EA about the construction of the railway through the Projects single point of contact…This is in accordance with a legally binding undertaking made to the EA through the Parliamentary process…, a methodology for assessing the risk of flooding during the operation of the railway has been submitted to and approved by the Environment Agency. In addition there are protective provisions in the Act in relation to land drainage, flood defence, water resources and fisheries…and any consents required for the station construction will be obtained.

Page 20 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Internal Consultation

Transport Services:

The new set of stairs are narrower than the existing set of stairs they lead to which access the District Line, Central Line, and platform 4 of Crossrail, although modelling does suggest that this would provide adequate space. Furthermore, the sight lines are poor and could pose conflict issues or result in a further narrowing of the usable space. Is there any scope to widen this and to create improved sight lines?

The lifts should be large enough to accommodate cycles. To meet this requirement they should have a minimum depth of 2 metres which appears to be shown on the drawing, although early plans show 1.6 metres which would result in cycles being positioned at an angle thereby reducing the available space.

No accessibility gates are shown on ticket barriers

Currently there are a number of ticket machines on the concourse. It is not clear where these will be, an increase in the existing number is recommended.

No doors are depicted for the retail units. It is, therefore, not clear whether these will be accessed from the concourse or the street.

22 cycle parking spaces are included in the proposals. It is recommended that more are provided. There appears to be scope to install some on Platform 4 in the vicinity of the area of platform being brought back into use.

Officers’ Response:

Noted. The station proposals meet relevant accessibility standards. The internal arrangement of ticket concourse is not required to be detailed in this submission, but appropriate provision of ticket machines and access gates will be provided. The design of the retail units is not a matter covered by this submission. Cycle parking provision is subject to separate considered by the Council.

Regulatory Services - Pollution:

No response to date.

Environmental Services (Refuse):

Objection on the grounds that no waste storage has been shown on the plans.

Officers’ Response: The amended proposals indicate waste storage areas on the southern part of the front elevation, located behind bronze coloured panel doors, that are considered to provide appropriate facilities.

Landscape:

Require details of proposed landscaping and public realm. However, are satisfied that these will be

Page 21 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03 provided under an application for a restoration scheme for the forecourt to be submitted at a later date.

Officers’ Response: This information will be provided as part of later submissions under a Schedule 7 – Construction Arrangements submission. There will also be a Restoration Scheme submitted which will specify specifications for hard and soft landscaping on land that has been used to construct Crossrail. This will be where the forecourt specifications for Ealing Broadway will be contained and will be submitted at a later date and is for agreement (at the latest) within 6 months of carrying out the last of the construction works.

Planning Policies:

Unlike a ‘normal’ planning application this Schedule 7 application has to be processed and determined in accordance with the procedures laid down in the Crossrail Act 2008 and adopted development plan policies are not required to be the basis of the determination of the application.

Reasoned Justification:

With respect to the determination of this Schedule 7 application, as Crossrail is approved outside of the remit of the 1990 Town & Country Planning Act and the works given deemed permission by the Crossrail Act, the application is subject to determination against the considerations in the table under paragraph 6 of Schedule 7 of the Crossrail Act detailed above and not national and local policies. However, some policies contained within the development plan for the area are referred to in the following report for information purposes, where relevant.

Principle of Development

The provision of facilities to bring about the Crossrail link from Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east is confirmed in the London Plan as being “the Mayor’s top strategic transport priority for London” (Policy 6.4) and paragraph 6.21 of the London Plan states:

“Crossrail is essential to the delivery of the strategic objectives of this Plan. Demand for public transport into and within central London is nearing capacity, with crowding on Network Rail services and on London Underground routes towards the West End, the City and Isle of Dogs. The employment growth expected over the period covered by this Plan will further increase demand. Unless this is addressed, continued development and employment growth in central and eastern London will be threatened. In particular, Crossrail is critical to supporting the growth of the financial and business services sectors in central London and in the Isle of Dogs, where there is market demand for additional development capacity. It will also provide much-needed additional transport capacity to the West End, where it will support the future development of that area as London’s premier retail and leisure location. The scheme will also improve links to Heathrow, thereby supporting connections for London’s global businesses. By linking these areas, Crossrail will help reinforce the development of London’s economic and business core. It is also crucial to the realisation of regeneration and intensification opportunities around key interchanges within the Central Activities Zone and to its east and west. Crossrail will make a vital contribution to improving the accessibility and attractiveness of the Thames Gateway to the east of the Isle of Dogs, through its cross-river link to south-east London and connection with the DLR network (including to a potential DLR extension to Dagenham Dock). It is expected that Crossrail will be operational in 2018.”

Policy 1.2(e) of the Ealing Development (or Core) Strategy confirms that the Council will “support opportunities from Crossrail and (HS2) working closely with Crossrail and HS2 planners

Page 22 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03 to ensure the benefits to the borough are maximised. These benefits include improved accessibility, greater public transport capacity on the key east/west radial corridor in the borough, and a mjor potential contribution to the regeneration and economic development in town centres and other sites along routes.” The reasoned justification for this policy indicates that Crossrail will boost London’s rail capacity by 10% when it opens in 2019. Accessibility of Central London for passengers from Ealing would be significantly improved, with journey times from to the West End, for example, being only 19 minutes.

Policy 2.5(f) of the Development (or Core) Strategy further indicates that the Council will support proposals to “modify Ealing Broadway and stations to cater for Crossrail services including enhanced bus interchange facilities (at Ealing Broadway) and facilities for cycling and walking to and from the town centre, improvements to the public realm including enhancement of the streetscape, upgrading the quality of existing open spaces in the vicinity of the town centre, improved signage, street furniture, lighting and public art.”

The application site also lies within Development Site EAL2 as identified In the Council’s adopted Development Sites Development Plan Document. This document allocates the wider site as a “mixed use development appropriate to the town centre, compatible with the function of Ealing Broadway Station as a strategic public transport interchange and the planned improvements to the station and forecourt area in advance of Crossrail.”

The principle of the development is therefore considered to be entirely appropriate and would accord with relevant requirements.

Design, Scale and Siting

Layout:

Concourse Level

The remodelled part of the superstructure would provide public facilities in the form of retail units along the length of the frontage, with the station entrance at its centre.

Whilst the submitted internal layout is indicative, there is the premise of the concourse being surrounded by public facilities to the north and south, with the ticket office occupying the central section to the north fronting onto the concourse. Servicing access onto the concourse would be provided to the south.

New platform accesses via steps and lift shafts would be located at the eastern end of the concourse, linking directly to Platform’s 1-3 and to the existing stairs to Platform 4 and London Underground services, with staff access to the mezzanine located either side of the concourse.

Villiers House and the retail units below are unchanged by these works. However, the new building line has given the opportunity for a similar design solution to be implemented across the rest of the façade, which is the subject of a separate planning application (reference number PP/2014/3142).

A canopy attached to the new building line would cover the depth of the forecourt, whilst providing a set back from the building to the south.

Page 23 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Mezzanine Level

The mezzanine would comprise staff facilities only and would be accessed via a new lift shaft and remodelled stair access.

Platform Level

At platform level the London Underground side of the station would be left as existing, including the main stairs to Platform’s 4-9.

There would remain public facilities for each platform, with the waiting area under the Platform 4 stairs re-provided as a waiting shelter further along Platform 4, new waiting room at the end of Platform 2/3 and the existing shelter on Platform 1 moved further down the platform.

Access to and from the platforms would be from the footbridge attached to the main structure at the western end of the station.

A new control room would be provided at the end of Platform 2/3 would provide staff facilities at platform level.

Platforms

Platform extensions for the longer Crossrail trains would be constructed to the east of Platform’s 1-3 at a length of 44 metres, 30 metres and 44 metres respectively.

To reach the required length, areas of currently unused platform on Platform’s 2 and 4 would be brought back into use.

Canopies

A new canopy would be provided along Platform 4 providing shelter eastwards from the stairs and situated over the most used section of the platform.

The canopy on Platform 2/3 would be replaced to make way for the new stair arrangement, and would be relocated to reach further up the platform to meet the new waiting room and control room building, which would provide further shelter under an overhang.

New Means of Escape Footbridge

A new means of escape footbridge would be located across the eastern ends of Platform’s 1-4, with an extension off Platform 1 out of the railway corridor to a place of safety.

Scale:

New Canopy to Main Entrance and Remodelled Concourse

The most significant change in terms of public visibility, urban design and accessibility terms will be the changes to the public interface of the station complex to The Broadway.

A new entrance canopy would be provided in front of the existing building which would extend approximately 13 metres from the existing building frontage at its deepest point outside of the station entrance and would be set at a height 7.6 metres above the existing forecourt level. Page 24 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Internally, the concourse under the canopy would have an approximate height of 7.3 metres, reducing to 3.3 metres under first floor offices located to the south of the main Villiers House tower.

The platforms would be located 5.3 metres below the entrance and concourse level.

The new entrance and canopy have been designed, in general terms, to reflect the predominant two- storey building height along The Broadway at this point, with Villiers House the exception at over 30 metres taller in the street scene. The structure would match the existing height of the adjacent building to the north and the detail of the eaves from the building to the south so should create visually continuity to the surrounding townscape.

Remodelled Staircases for Platforms 1 and 2/3

The new staircases would each consist of three flights of steps with two intermediate landings. At their highest points, the base and roof of the staircases would be approximately 5.1 metres and 8.3 metres above platform level respectively.

New Canopies on Platforms 2/3 and 4

The new Platform 2/3 canopy would be 43.5 metres long, 4.5 metres wide and would have a height of 3.6 metres.

The Platform 4 canopy would be 88.2 metres long, 4.5 metres wide and would also have a height of 3.6 metres. A section of the canopy at the western end of the station approximately 6 metres wide would extend 4 metres north to meet the existing Platform 5 canopy.

Platform 4 Waiting Shelter

The new waiting shelter would be a partially enclosed area under the canopy, with glass and steel panels 2.8 metres in height.

New Waiting Room and Control Building on Platform 2/3

The waiting room and control building would be 4.5 metres x 12 metres in size and would have a height of 3.2 metres. A canopy would run the full perimeter of the building and would extend 2.3 metres from the walls.

New Means of Escape Footbridge

The escape footbridge would be 32.5 metres long. The top of the parapet would sit 6.5 metres above platform level. The bottom of the bridge deck would be 4.9 metres above track level.

New Lighting

Two way luminaires would be installed on the new façade and the new canopy columns to the forecourt. These would be set 3.8 metres up the structure and directed upwards and downwards.

Page 25 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

Appearance:

The station development has been designed to increase its presence in the street scene through the addition of the forecourt canopy, which is intended to make the entrance to the station more visible from The Broadway and Haven Green.

The scale and height of Villiers House provides a landmark in the area in longer views, which marks the location of Villiers House and the station superstructure.

The area around the station is within Ealing Town Centre. As a result the streets around the station, with the exception of Haven Green, have active frontages. Surrounding roads are generally fronted at street level by commercial and retail uses, with residential and community frontages on the peripheries to the north and east.

In response to this context, the re-modelled station would provide an improved active frontage along the entirety of the façade with an open double height glazed station entrance at the centre.

The station entrance would be at street level, wider than the existing and the changes to the design of the superstructure to be undertaken should improve the appearance of the area and create a consistent building line. This should increase public visibility of the interchange and amenity area of the forecourt and respond better to its environment.

As mentioned above, the most visible changes to the station structure would occur to the main front elevation, which would comprise a large canopy across the whole station forecourt and a new consistent building line to the superstructure.

The canopy would extend outwards from the station concourse and over the forecourt and would be supported by steel columns. The canopy would cover the majority of the station façade, but would step back on the southern edge to respect the neighbouring, former Town House building, now in use as a bank and residential units. This design approach would provide the station with a stronger presence in the streetscape, which should improve its legibility from The Broadway and would compliment the setting of the neighbouring conservation areas.

Materials:

The basic structure of the new façade would be a steel frame, finished as an architectural element set with a glass curtain wall system.

The external walls would be constructed of three different sections and styles of glazing. The lower section would consist of full height glazing to the ceiling of the unit, with an area to be used for signage set above the door frame. This would follow a set design methodology for the Crossrail project and would be uniform across the station developments.

Above the unit would be a glazed back box with white fritted glass to obscure the existing structure with the upper glazing section containing fritted glass panels to the canopy sofit.

Internally, the concourse walls would comprise floor to ceiling bronze metal panels with floors consisting of terrazzo tiles.

The external canopy would be steel framed with ten steel columns, with a wooden sofit that would extend into the concourse.

Page 26 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

The existing walkway and footbridge structures to be retained would be re-clad using glass windows and solid infill bronze coloured steel panels.

The new staircases would be constructed from a steelwork frame with steel deck plate, steel bronze coloured cladding panel sides, and a steel profiled sheet roof.

The waiting room on Platform 4 would be constructed from an exposed steel frame. All columns would have an SHS box section with horizontal “I” beams. A cantilevered overhang would run the full perimeter of the building to provide solar shading and shelter. Exposed steel work would be painted dark grey, to contrast with the bronze coloured cladding.

External walls would be made from a galvanised steel panelised system constructed from light weight metal stud frames with a dry lining and rain screen interior. The roof would be formed of Kingspan trapezoidal metal decking.

The escape footbridge would be an integral steel structure, comprised of Rectangular Hollow Structure (RHS) stringers and steel tread units.

Accessibility:

Station access would be gained directly from The Broadway through the new, step-free, entrance to the larger concourse area. Internally stairs and lifts would provide access to all platforms. In total four lifts would be provided – one in the south-east corner of the concourse area that would serve Platform 2/3 (and also providing access to the staff facilities to be provided on the mezzanine level), one accessed by a level access walkway to the south of the concourse serving Platform 1 and two located off a short level walkway off the north-east corner of the concourse serving Platform 4 (and also giving access to London Underground platforms 5 and 6, used by Central Line services). Stepped access to the London Underground District Line platforms (Platforms 7, 8 and 9) would be retained, but no lift access would be provided as this area falls outside of the Crossrail area.

Whilst early indications were that escalators would be provided to (some of) the platforms, these are not included as part of this ‘plans and specifications’ submission. Network Rail, on behalf of Crossrail, has indicated that:

“As previously outlined…the operation of the station is not a matter for consideration by the local planning authority and whilst the Hybrid Bill scheme did show escalators as part of a scheme that had a new footbridge, design development has revealed that an escalator to platform 2/3 is un-workable as there is insufficient platform width. An escalator to platform 4 has never been considered using the existing footbridge. Importantly, escalator access may compromise fire safety as the platform evacuation scenario relies on stairs only.”

Overall, the proposal are considered to represent a significant improvement over the existing situation in terms of accessibility, not only for wheelchair users, but also for other persons with mobility issues, those with prams or buggies for small children, cycle users and those carrying heavy baggage or suitcases. The proposal is considered to accord with relevant requirements in accessibility terms.

Impact on Neighbouring Amenity:

The application site lies within a town centre location and is surrounded by a mix of land uses, with primarily commercial uses to the south, north and west, and predominantly residential development to the east. Some of the commercial units in close proximity to the main station entrance have residential

Page 27 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03 accommodation above, including the Metro Bank facility in the former Town House building immediately to the south of the station.

The proposed changes to the main station entrance are, however, considered to be unlikely to have any direct impact on residential amenity.

The extension of the platforms to the east would result in the public areas of the station moving closer to existing residential properties, both in Madeley Road to the north and along Uxbridge Road and Hamilton Road to the south and potentially the new footbridge at the eastern end of the platforms and the escape stair which would emerge to the rear of 21 Uxbridge Road and adjacent to College Court, Hamilton Road, could have implications as and when used. However, given the long established use of the site as a railway station, the distances between the new development and residential units and the fact that the railway station platforms are set below street level, it is not considered that any adverse impacts on neighbouring residential amenity would result from the development.

Impact on Heritage Assets:

The application site is located between the Haven Green Conservation Area, to the north-west, and the Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area, to the south. A number of properties in the immediate vicinity are locally listed and there are also two statutory listed buildings nearby – 1 The Mall (the NatWest Bank) and 36 Haven Green.

The main element of the proposals that will be visible from the conservation areas will be the canopy feature over the station forecourt and the new façade to the station concourse. The canopy has been designed to reflect the curve of The Broadway and to follow the building line of the developments to the north and south of the station entrance, but will be a relatively light weight structure to provide a degree of shelter for users of the station entrance. The station façade would be predominantly glazed panels within a steel frame and would provide a contemporary, visible access to the station concourse. This design approach would add to the legibility of the facility in a positive way in urban design terms and would complement the character and appearance of surrounding development.

The design of the proposal would contribute positively to the appearance of the area and enhance views of the area from both conservation areas.

With regard to any potential impact on the character and setting of any statutory or locally listed buildings in the vicinity of the station the proposed development would not result in any adverse impact and would not result in any harm to any heritage assets.

Urban Realm:

Landscaping and works to the forecourt area which will be used as a worksite would be subject to a Site Restoration Scheme to be agreed with the Council and the details are not for approval as part of this Plans and Specifications submission.

However, the Site Restoration Scheme would be designed in accordance with the requirements of the Ealing Broadway Interchange Study, produced by the Highways Department, and other Council led designs for the area. The main aims of the study are to:

 Improve the public realm;  Improve the integration of transport modes;  Improve the pedestrian environment and links to the town centre;

Page 28 of 29

Planning Committee 13/08/2014 Schedule Item: 03

 Improve cycle access and parking;  Protect and enhance Haven Green;  Create a new gateway to Ealing town centre; and  To rationalise and improve the efficiency of bus operations around Haven Green.

The submitted Plans and Specifications do not encompass these wider regeneration proposals and these would form part of the wider improvements to the area around Ealing Broadway station.

Human Rights Act:

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

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

Page 29 of 29