Meeting Details

Planning Committee
21 Mar 2018 - 19:00 to 22:00



Standard Items
MEMBERSHIP: Councillors: Hynes (Chair), Ahmed, Aslam, Ball, Dhindsa, Mahmood, Manro, Proud, Raza, Summers, Sumner, L Wall, and R Wall.
1. Apologies for Absence
There were none.
2. Urgent Matters
There were none.
3. Declarations of Interest
There were none.
4. Matters to be Considered in Private
There were none.
5. Minutes
RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 21st February 2018, be agreed and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the meeting.
Site Visit Attendance
The Chair reported that he, together with Councillors Ahmed, Ball, Mahmood, Manro and R Wall, had attended the site visits held on 17th March 2018. Councillors Proud and Sumner had sent their apologies for absence. Councillor Proud noted that he had independently visited the sites on Monday, 19th March 2018.
Planning Applications and Enforcement The Chair advised that one speaker in objection to Applications 01, 02 and 03 would be allowed to speak. This was in addition to applicants for the aforementioned Applications speaking as well. Ward Councillors Joy Morrissey and Joanna Camadoo would speak on Items 01 and 03, respectively.


Proposal: Conversion of the ground floor of the building to provide 6 self-contained flats facilitated by a single storey rear extension and new basement level with front, rear and side lightwells (a total of 15 dwellings).


Alex Jackson (Development Planning Manager) introduced the report and referred Members to additional information provided in the Briefing Notes. The Committee was informed that the Application was for further residential development of an existing residential building containing 1 flat and 9 bedsits, and seeking to subdivide the ground floor flat to provide 6 self-contained flats (total 15 dwellings) facilitated by a single storey rear extension and new basement level with front, rear and side lightwells. No changes were proposed to the existing bedsits within the upper levels (first and second floor levels).


The proposal would result in the site exceeding the recommended density with regards to units per hectare under the London Plan (2016). Notwithstanding, the principle of residential use of the site was considered acceptable as the proposed development would make a contribution to the housing stock within the borough and the proposal was considered to be of a suitably high quality of design so as to preserve the character and appearance of the existing building and wider streetscape.


Some of the key issues considered as part of the Application were the character and appearance of the development, its impact upon neighbours’ residential amenities and the quality of the accommodation proposed. It was considered the proposal would be a suitable development that would relate in an acceptable manner to neighbouring developments and would not adversely impact on the setting of the neighbouring Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area. The proposed amendments to the building frontage were limited to the ground floor and new basement lightwells. These changes were considered to be acceptable. In addition, the design of the development was considered to minimise impacts on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers and would provide for acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. The proposed development would be acceptable in terms of landscaping, transport/parking impacts, environmental pollution and refuse facilities.


On balance, it was considered that the proposal was consistent with the aims of the relevant policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012), London Plan (2016), the Adopted Ealing Development (Core) Strategy (2012), Ealing Development Management DPD (2013) and other relevant supplementary planning guidance. Consequently, this application was recommended for approval subject to suitable conditions and entering into a S106 legal agreement restricting all future occupiers of the proposed six self-contained flats from obtaining car parking permits.


Ian Cunningham, spoke in objection to the Application.  He was the co-owner of the neighbouring 79 Madeley Road and also spoke on behalf of his tenants. The proposed 3.3metre depth basement excavations being proposed would extend the whole width of the plot at 77 Madeley Road up to neighbouring properties, including his own. The developers had half of the boundary wall with which to develop a retaining structure, which was not enough to hold back earth to a depth of 3.5metres. The Basement Impact Assessment was not availed until a couple of hours before the meeting, despite requests for it to be made available more than two days previously. There was not sufficient time to arrange for professional scrutiny of the document and, therefore, the Application should be deferred. Encroachment on neighbouring properties, including his, would be inevitable as the plans stood. Certificate B under Section 65(6) should have been served, as well as other notices, for 75 and 79 Madeley Road.   


Jonathan Cross, the agent for p-ad, spoke on behalf of the Applicant. A pre-planning application was submitted in October 2017, which set out the documents required to support the Application, including the Basement Impact Assessment. He was cognisant of the importance of basement development, and that it was best practice to deal with it at planning stage. The property was in a desirable location with a public transport accessibility level (PTAL) rating of 5. The site was considered a “suburban location” for which London Plan Policy 3.4 targeted a density of 200-350hrh (rooms per hectare). The six proposed flats would have 14 habitable rooms, with a density of 163hrh, and with the self-contained units on the upper floors that would bring the density to 264hrh. The proposed development was not in a Conservation Area, where houses are set back by 30metres. It was at the end of a 35metre long rear garden, in which the Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area boundary lay. Sections of the proposed basement would be full width to afford views to the rear garden from bedrooms and there were no proposals to replace or remove party walls as the proposals were wholly within the application site. Therefore, no access would be required to either neighbour’s properties, 75 Madeley or 79 Madeley Road, to realise the development.


Councillor Joy Morrissey, Ward Councillor, spoke in objection to the Application.  She reiterated that the Basement Impact Assessment was only availed the same day as the meeting and reading a 38 page document in a couple of hours before the meeting was difficult. There was need for more time to consider it and deferring the Application should be considered. The proposal was “over-densification” and “over-development” of a property that already had 10 flats. There were no plans shown for upper floors meaning it could not be determined if it was stacking. There would be loss of visual amenities for the two adjoining neighbouring properties and, supports would need to go on adjacent land but that was not shown in plans. Therefore, Certificate B and notices to 75 Madeley Road and 79 Madeley Road should have been served.


The Development Planning Manager explained that there were no local or national requirements for a Basement Impact Assessment, and it was not required to be reviewed as part of that particular assessment. Although some boroughs in London required them, Ealing did not. However, the Applicant had submitted a draft from the outset, but it had, inadvertently, not been uploaded earlier. Other aspects raised by the objector could be dealt with through Building Control, which was separate from planning. As the proposed development would be entirely within the site area, and with no reason to believe the application would encroach, there was no requirement to issue Certificate B notification, and therefore, the correct notices had already been served.


Councillor Ball stated that there was a need to think about whether deferring the Application due to the basement impact assessment would be reasonable grounds for deferral, despite the lack of such regulations in Ealing. The basement seemed to be the most contentious part of the Application.


Councillor Proud said the planning assessment was riddled with generalities. In this case there would be a huge block of basement causing extra water around neighbouring properties 75 and 79 Madeley Road, which were at the bottom of a hill, with potential for water courses to cause concern.


The Chair explained that the issue raised by Councillor Proud was under the remit of Building Control.


Councillor Wall stated that the objections did not seem to be planning grounds for turning it down. However, those factors did not have a bearing on how he viewed the Application and he did not understand why it had come to Committee or had required a site visit.


The Chair said he the Application was on paper a large basement extension and worthy of consideration. However, he agreed with Councillor Wall’s comments that these were issues for Building Control, rather than planning. Ealing did not have basement regulations akin to other boroughs, such as Kensington and Chelsea. He appreciated the objector’s concerns but did not see how the Application could be turned down based upon that.


Councillor Ball raised two concerns regarding the impact of construction, where a large basement would be dug out whilst other floors were in-situ. With the construction within a footprint of the site, it would be physically impossible not to encroach on neighbouring properties, meaning Certificate B notifications should have been issued to 75 and 79 Madeley Road.


The Head of Legal (Property and Regulatory) explained that if the proposed development was completely within its own boundaries, then there was no need for Certificate B. However, if it proved to extend beyond its boundaries, then, that would be a separate process to be resolved elsewhere other than Planning, such as Building Control.


The Chair asked the Committee to proceed to vote on the Application.


Resolved: to GRANT planning permission subject to the completion of legal agreement and conditions in the agenda report and briefing note.

Proposal: Redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed use residential-led development comprising of 333 residential units (use class C3), 2,086sqm retail food store (use class A1), 67sqm of flexible space (use class A1/A3/D1), energy centre and sub-station, with building heights between 3 and 16 storeys; with associated car and cycle parking; hard and soft landscaping; private and communal amenity spaces.


Chris Maltby (Principal Planning Officer) introduced the report and referred Members to the additional information provided in the Briefing Notes.


The proposal was considered to be acceptable and Members were recommended to approve the application.


The proposals comprised planning Application for a 0.95-hectare site located at the junction of the A40/Western Avenue with Old Oak Common Lane. The site had frontages to the A40/Western Avenue to the north, Old Oak Common Lane to the east and East Acton Lane to the south. The site was located adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Borough of Ealing with the opposite side of Old Oak Common Lane marking the boundary with the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham


The site was currently occupied by a Homebase and Argos retail warehouse. The main two storey warehouse building was located centrally in the northern part of the site with surface car parking extending to the east and south of the building fronting Old Oak Lane and East Acton Lane. To the west of the main building was a smaller single storey extension and a service yard which is accessed directly from the A40. The customer vehicle entry and exit was located on the southern boundary onto East Acton Lane, there are currently 115 customer parking spaces.


The site was located within approximately 500m of East Acton underground station and there were a number of local bus routes stopping directly on the northern and eastern boundaries of the site. The site had a PTAL rating of predominantly 6a with some variance across the site.


The surrounding area was characterised by a mix of uses, comprising residential, retail and religious buildings and a mix of building styles, types and heights. Properties to the north and east of the Site fronting the A40 and Old Oak Lane were typically 3 storeys in height and mainly comprised retail at the ground floor, with residential above. The wider context primarily consisted of residential uses, with a mixture of two storey semi-detached properties, low rise apartment blocks to the west along the A40 and some high rise residential to the south of the site, including the 12 storey Burghley Tower.


To the east was the ‘Savoy Circus’ Development, a 7-storey student accommodation block currently under construction. This site lay within the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.


The proposals subject of this application comprised a residential led mixed use development including 333 residential units and a retail food store (use class A1) of 2,086sq.m and a flexible space (use classes A1/A3/D1) of 67sq.m. In addition, 17 blue badge parking spaces were proposed to serve the residential units and 70 spaces were proposed to serve the retail component. 35% of all residential units by habitable rooms would be affordable with a tenure split of 30% London Affordable Rent and 70% shared ownership.


Anthony Fowler, spoke in opposition to the Application, and stated that the proposed development would discriminate against an important section of community, namely tradespeople, because there was lack of parking space for people who needed vehicles for work. Only five parking spaces had been proposed, all of them for disabled badge holders. The Council of the neighbouring Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham had raised objections about height and the level of obstruction. The Committee could defer the Application until agreement was reached with the Council of Hammersmith and Fulham. Furthermore, Transport for London had raised objections concerning road infrastructure. They would need to reconfigure an island on a seven-lane roadway at the Savoy Circus junction, which was only big enough for three pedestrians at present. This was also grounds to defer the Application until an agreement with TfL was reached.


Martin Scholar, spoke on behalf of the Applicant, and informed Members that the proposal was to turn a retail warehouse and car park into a supermarket. That would fill a retail gap in the High Street as well as add new homes. TfL was going to improve traffic flow at the Savoy Circus junction by enhancing pedestrian crossings and would deliver a new cycleway along the A40. This would be achieved by transferring land to TfL, and Ealing would provide the funding. The approach to the low car parking provision within the scheme followed best practice in Ealing to encourage the use of other more sustainable modes of travel. Individuals who relied on vehicles for work would have the option to access the car club.  Of the 333 new homes, 114 would be affordable, representing 35% of the units to be developed. The affordable rented homes would be discounted at between 38% and 52% of market rents. There would also be shared ownership homes within the development, which would allow first time buyers to purchase a portion of the new homes. The regeneration benefits would fill a gap in East Acton providing 70 jobs, and offer a green buffer with community space away from the highway, would be contributed through the £3.46m S106 funding. In regards to the objections raised by the Council of Hammersmith and Fulham, the Applicant held a different opinion, which was supported by Ealing, and believed the proposed development would deliver the needed regeneration to the site.


Councillor Wall asked what the difference was between objector and Applicant regarding the island on the road to be redesigned. He also wanted to know more about the mix of tenure and how it was set out.


Councillor Summers also asked about how the traffic island would be achieved.


The Planning Officer explained that TfL discussion included improvements at the main junction for pedestrians and cyclists at the Savoy Circus junction. There would be more room, making it and safer. However, the scheme was still presently at draft stage and the concern to improve capacity would be considered.


The Head of Housing Development explained that there would be a mix of tenures, broadly on a 70% and 30%, intermediate and shared ownership basis. Though that was not in accordance with the current position of the Emerging London Plan, it was proportional to what Ealing borough was doing. Most of the rental units would be family 3-bed units, the type desperately needed in the borough.


The Chair asked how the Committee could be assured of affordability.


The Head of Housing Development explained that the homes were to be delivered by a Housing Association, who only provided shared ownership. The buyer would purchase a minimum of 25% of the property and then pay reduced rent on the remainder. Rigorous affordability checks would take place to ensure the people could afford the homes.


Councillor Proud noted that he was not keen on the height, however, the lack of studio flats was a pleasing feature. He was, therefore, minded to support the Application.


Councillor Ball said he was concerned about affordability. He was in favour of ensuring that the shift towards the mix towards genuine affordability was achieved. The objection from the Council of Hammersmith and Fulham ought to be taken seriously, though he thought that the current Homebase was unattractive and needed redevelopment.


Councillor Manro stated that the level of being affordable provision was actually a good offering and he would be supporting the proposal.


The Chair asked where the affordable homes would be located.


The Planner Officer explained that Planning would cover the issue of affordability and location in the S106 negotiations.


Councillor Wall asked whether having different doors for different types of tenure could be divisive. He also wanted to know if rent increased when household income increased.


The Head of Housing Development explained that the proportion of rent did not change with income rises, however, tenants were encouraged to ‘staircase up’ and buy a larger share of in the property when their incomes increased. In regards to different doors of entry, shared ownership was often separate from social rent residents due to the differing service charges in different parts of the development.


Councillor Wall said he did not accept that service charges were a reasonable excuse for having different entry doors, and cautioned against it.


Councillor Aslam asked if service charge was included in rent or separate.


The Head of Housing Development explained that service charge was separate but taken into account when conducting household income costs analysis.


The Chair then called for a vote on the Application.


Resolved: to GRANT planning permission subject to the Stage II referal to the Mayor of London,  the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions in the agenda report/briefing notes.

Proposal: Mixed use residential-led redevelopment to provide two buildings comprising a part four and part nine storey building of 679sqm of flexible commercial uses (Use Class A1/A2/A3/D2) and 57 residential units (including affordable housing); and associated cycle storage, public and private amenity spaces, refuse and recycling storage and, hard and soft landscaping (following demolition of the existing buildings).


Jonathan Hartnett (Planning Officer) introduced the report and referred Members to the additional information provided in the Briefing Notes.


The proposal was considered to be acceptable and Members were recommended to approve the application.


The proposed development would be comprised of two buildings (A and B) ranging in height from four to nine storeys, with Building B containing commercial space located at 70-88 Uxbridge Road and Building A being solely residential at 64-66 Uxbridge Road. The apartment buildings would provide for a range in apartment sizes from studios to three bed-roomed units and 679sqm of commercial floor space. Flexible commercial uses and potential community use would occupy the ground floor of Block B. The proposed development would be located within an allocated development site and would make effective use of a brownfield site in a sustainable location; maximising regeneration potential that would deliver increased housing supply and commercial floor space to help meet the identified needs of Hanwell.


The level of affordable housing proposed would be 20 units equating to 35%, comprised of 13 ‘Shared Ownership’ units and 7 units for ‘Affordable Rent’. The remaining 37 units would be private market housing. Ealing Council’s Housing Department had considered the policy compliant level and tenure split of the proposed affordable housing, and were in this instance satisfied with the offer.


It was known that 76 Uxbridge Road was formerly Jim Marshall and Sons music shop where the first Marshall amplifier was conceived in the 1960’s. The façade of both buildings was interspersed with accent elements in aluminium, which would assist in reducing the mass of the building, with external and recessed balconies and brick detailing to complement the colour of the façade.


An assessment of the potential impacts on neighbouring residential amenity had been carried out. While it was recognised that there would be some degree of daylight loss experienced by two properties, being 97 and 101 Uxbridge Road, these were considered acceptable given the town centre context. In regards to potential loss of privacy, due to the proposed design, window and balcony treatments as well as separation distances, the proposed development would not result in undue overlooking that would cause harm to the privacy of neighbouring occupiers. Regarding potential loss of outlook and creation of a perceived sense of enclosure, it was acknowledged that the outlook neighbouring properties would unavoidably be altered. This was unlikely to result in a harmful loss of outlook or undue sense of enclosure. On balance it was considered unlikely that the development would result in an adverse impact on residential amenity to such an extent that warranted refusal.


The location had a very good public transport accessibility level (PTAL 4). Given those factors the provision of car-free housing was considered appropriate, subject to the prohibition of residents obtaining parking permits for future CPZs, and compliance with a robust green travel plan to be secured through condition. This approach to low car housing was supported by the Council’s Transport Services.


Representations from 166 individuals and organisations had been received and 95 were opposed to the proposal, including objections from the Ealing Civic Society and Hanwell and Canals Conservation Areas Advisory Panel. Seventy-one (71) letters were in support. The objections predominantly concerned the potential impact upon the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers, but also principally concerned the proposed height, scale, and design of the proposal and the related potential impacts on the street scene and character of the area.


The impact of the development would be acceptably mitigated through conditions and S106 contributions, which would be directed towards local healthcare and education provision; post construction energy monitoring; travel plan monitoring. In addition the proposed legal agreement would seek to prevent prospective residents from obtaining parking permits for any future controlled parking zones.  


It was considered that the proposal on balance was consistent with the aims of the relevant policies of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan 2013, Ealing Development Strategy 2026 (2012), The London Plan (2016), Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance, the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and emerging planning policy documents.


It was therefore recommended that planning permission should be approved with conditions, subject to a legal agreement.


Carolyn Brown, spoke in objecting to the Application on behalf of Hanwell Community Forum, Hanwell Village Green Conservation Area Residents Association, Olde Hanwell Residents Association and Ealing Civic Society. The proposed development of 57 units, at nine storeys, would overpower the Victorian and Edwardian buildings along Uxbridge Road since the tallest building on the High Street was three storeys. Therefore, the proposed development would be more than five storeys higher than High Street buildings and surrounding residences, thus violating Policy 7.7 of the London Plan, which stated that: “tall buildings can only be considered in areas whose character would not be affected adversely by the scale, mass or bulk of the tall building. And where it will relate well to the form and character of surrounding buildings.”


The majority of the affordable rental housing units at 30% of market value would be in an isolated section of Block A, which would negatively segregate the tenants in the block, rather than “pepper-potting” them across the development to ensure that the development contained both less and more affluent residents in the same community.


The apartments would not be generously proportioned, barely meeting the minimum legal specification of clause 3.3 of the Minimum Space Standards for New Dwellings. Further, the ceiling would be low. In addition, density, at 407units per hectare and 885 habitable rooms per hectare, would be very high, and well into the central London range of the London Plan’s Sustainable Residential Quality Matrix. Hanwell was regarded as “suburban”. Three of the units would be single and north facing, which was not acceptable in the Sites Development Plan adopted in 2013.  There would be no “generous private balconies” as stated in the proposed development report, and the roof terrace would be expected to serve all 57 flats. There would be inadequate green space within easy reach of the development. There would be no parking spaces at the proposed site, and future residents prohibited from having CPZ permits. That would exacerbate congested street parking issues in Hanwell. There would be loss of daylight to two properties, which was dismissed by the Planners, when Ealing Council should be protecting daylight to homes. The arrival of 385 new homes within a quarter mile radius would be overdevelopment. The proposed development would be within short distance of the Hanwell Clock Tower Conservation Area, and lead to the demolition of a heritage asset, the Nashville Place Cottages, which were in place when Queen Anne was on the throne in 1714.


Nigel Leigh, from Miles Allen, spoke for the Applicant. The proposed development would have 57 new homes, and the Applicant had been through a long pre-application process to come up with proposals that would build upon the character of Hanwell town centre. The main buildings facing Uxbridge Road would be 4 storeys high overall and 35% of the units would be affordable. The units would be split into social rent (64-66 Uxbridge Road) and shared ownership (70-88 Uxbridge Road). The shared ownership properties would be pepper potted throughout the development. The developer was mindful of the roots of Jim Marshall’s first amplifier shop at 76 Uxbridge Road and would complement that legacy with a building of quality and character that made a positive contribution to Hanwell.


Ward Councillor Joanna Camadoo spoke in objection to the proposed development. It would be inappropriate for Hanwell town centre as nine storeys would be too high for that part of Uxbridge Road and the surrounding areas. It would harm the visual amenity of the street scene and the character of the area. The “protruding” effects were just the views of Planning Officers and were considered to be inaccurate. Would the features mitigate against the other elements? Images on page 30 onwards of the Report suggested they would not. The visual impacts violated Policy 7.7 of the London Plan. There would also be adverse impacts at street level and lack of complement to the street scene. A building project of that scale would impact upon the environment. Could there be glazing, microclimate, and pollutant issues to be considered? And could Officers confirm if those had been assessed?


There was no justification in Officers’ explanation for the height of the development. With only 7 units offered at affordable rent levels that would not provide choice to struggling residents. Why was there no Section 106 contribution to social housing in the proposal? The placement of social rent residents to one section of the development was a negative element. The Committee was urged to set a precedent and refuse the Application. That was the only way to send the message that the borough would only accept the best level of tenure.


The Planner Officer explained that there would be no loss of daylight or sunlight as extensive studies on neighbouring properties that had been conducted showed that only two windows would be affected to a marginal degree at 101 Uxbridge Road.


Councillor Wall stated that he largely agreed with Councillor Camadoo’s objections. The proposed development would be out of character in Hanwell, as it would be too high for the area, and look unattractive. He did not understand how the development would “build on the character” of Hanwell, when the building would be box-shaped. He stated that unless convinced otherwise he would not support the Application.


Councillor Raza said she was struggling to sympathise with the character of the development as she did not visualise how it would work in central Hanwell. It looked like it would be unsympathetic to buildings around it. She did not understand how this could be considered in context. Therefore, she would vote to refuse the Application.


Councillor Ball stated that although he liked the four storey element, he saw three significant problems. The size of the rooms was not acceptable. The part of the development that would be at least four stories higher than buildings around it, set in a very low-rise town centre, would be out of character. The units lacked affordability, with only seven units set for social housing, and as they would be away from rest of the development, it would be the opposite of pepper-potting. For those reasons, he would not support the Application.


Councillor Manro said he usually did not object to height in developments but the design appeared to be very poor. It needed a different plan with a supermarket included within the scheme. He would not object on height or density because housing was needed in the borough, but in this instance, he would seek for a deferral for redesign.


Councillor Summers said he concurred with Councillor Manro’s request for deferral because the affordable housing offer was weak. However, he did not think the building would be out of keeping with the area.


Councillor Wall said even if the Committee refused the Application, the Planner would still liaise with the Applicant. The Committee needed to send an important message. Turning down and refusing the Application was the way to do that. The reasons for refusal could be twofold: the development would be too bulky and massing, as it did not “break up”; and it would impact adversely on the character of the area and street scene and the buffer would not ameliorate that.


Councillor Ahmed said although there was need for housing in the borough, the design was out of character. Therefore, the Application should be refused.


The Chair then requested Members to vote on whether to defer the Application or proceed with the meeting to vote on either to accept or refuse the Application. Two Members voted to defer, while 10 voted against deferral.


The Chair stated that the meeting would proceed and the Committee would later vote on either accepting or refusing the Application.


The Development Planning Manager explained that environmental impacts were only undertaken on much taller buildings, and that assessments would require a higher proportion of glazing for that to be undertaken, in response to Councillor Camadoo’s questions. The design had been conceived through a long process. It could be subjective, however, the proposed development was predominantly a three storey building looking from street level, and was four stories when set back. The context of the Hanwell area was changing. The nine storey element of the development had been scaled back. When looking at sites it was worth considering them in terms of other applications coming forward. A lot of thought had gone into the materials and design aspects.


Councillor Wall stated that there were no tall buildings near the area at the moment and the Committee should not encourage them creeping up, in response to the Development Planning Manager’s comments.


The Chair asked the Committee to proceed to vote on the Application.


RESOLVED: To REFUSE planning permission:


Recommendation – Overturned – planning permission refused for the following reason:


1.     The proposed development, by reason of its excessive height, in particular the tower element, bulk, siting, massing, scale and design (including external appearance) would represent an incongruous and visually intrusive form of development which would be detrimental to the visual qualities of the street scene and out of proportion with the immediate high street location, the proposal also fails to provide a high quality design response appropriate of its location, also harmful and out of character with the adjacent Hanwell Clock Tower CA and setting of the Grade II Church of St Mellitus  and is therefore contrary to National Planning Policy Framework, Policy 3.5 Quality and Design of Housing Developments,  Policy 7.1 (Lifetime Neighbourhoods), Policy 7.4 (Local Character), Policy 7.6 (Architecture), 7.8 (Heritage assets and archaeology) of 'The London Plan 2016', Policy 3.5 - Ealing Local Variation - Quality and Design of Housing Developments, Policy 7A Ealing Local Policy – Amenity, Policy 7.4 Ealing Local Variation - Local Character and Policy 7B Ealing Local Policy - Design Amenity, Policy 7C Ealing Local Policy – Heritage.

8. Date of Next Meeting
The next meeting will be held on 18 April 2018.
Paul Najsarek, Chief Executive, 13 March 2018

Declarations of Interests


Visitor Information is not yet available for this meeting