Gregory Gray, Planning Officer, introduced the report, explaining that the proposals were for
demolition of all existing buildings and erection of a replacement leisure centre. The application site
was 13.2ha, of which 4ha was proposed to accommodate built development with 1.42ha of that
accommodating new buildings, facilitating affordable and market housing residential development
in 6 blocks ranging from 6 to 17 storeys, flexible retail floorspace, plant room and energy centre,
leisure centre coach parking, basement residential and leisure centre cycle and car parking,
refuse/recycling storage, new servicing, vehicular and pedestrian accesses and associated
highway works, new and replacement play space, public realm and public open space, landscaping
and associated ground works to existing public open space.
It was explained that the site was on land designated as Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and
comprising public open space. London Plan Policy G3 afforded MOL the same protection as Green
Belt and for the purpose of determining applications, directed applicants/decision makers to the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF supported proposals that enhanced MOL
status and function and provided a wider range of benefits. The Officer outlined the several steps
that were taken to establish if development on this MOL land would lead to any harm.
The Committee was informed that a facilitating development was necessary to fund this
development. The benefits for enabling this development outweighed the disbenefits from departing
from planning policies. The Viability Assessment had been independently assessed for the
Council by Lambert Smith. The Viability Assessment concluded that the application scheme
represented the optimum scenario as it limited the quantum of inappropriate development on MOL
whilst maximising the genuinely affordable offer secured. It was concluded from the Alternative Site
Assessment process that there was no genuinely available alternative location for the replacement
of the Gurnell Leisure Centre. Accordingly, it was considered that the existing Gurnell LC site
represented a 'site of last resort'.
The Officer reported that there was extensive pre-application consultation with the GLA for a period
of approximately 3 years, during which the design of the proposal was considered. The GLA
insisted that any development should maximise its footprint with regard to previously developed
land, i.e. the car park and existing leisure centre. Therefore, the application confined the new
housing development to the existing developed land comprising the leisure centre car park.
The Committee was informed that the scheme would involve the construction of a total of
14,292sqm footprint of new buildings, hard-standings, car park and access roads, amounting to an
increase of 77sqm (or 0.54%) over the existing 14,215sqm of ‘previously developed land’.
It was explained that the site was in an area of flood risk. However, there would be measures in
place to mitigate the risk of flood. A balancing pond would be created and run through the site and
flood water would drain into it. The balancing pond would contain the flood water and carry it out of
the site. The applicant had undertaken consultation directly with the Environment Agency (EA). The
EA was in support of the application, subject to the imposition of a condition concerning the
provision and management of a buffer zone to the River Brent, which was included in the
recommendation.
It was further explained that there were 387 existing trees at the site and under the proposal 141
existing trees would be removed and 198 trees would be planted. Therefore, there would be a net
increase of 57 trees post-development. The landscaping plans were fully supported by the
Council’s Leisure Department and Natural England did not object to this application.
The Committee heard that the main pool in the proposed leisure centre would have a total area of
1,250sqm, with the length at 50m and width at 25m. This was an increase from the existing pool at
760sqm, with the length at 50m and width at 13-15m. The new leisure centre would include a soft
play area; café; and meeting rooms. The objective for this proposal was to create a leisure centre
for the community for the long term.
It was explained that implementation of the development would commence with the construction of
the shared basement. The current BMX track (as well as the play ground, and skateboard park)
would need to be relocated to facilitate this.
The Committee was informed that there would be at least 196 affordable flats, equating to 34.5%
by habitable rooms.
The Committee was further informed that, across the scheme: 40.6% were dual aspect residential
units and 13.8% were single aspect and north facing residential units. There were 3 affordable units
that were north facing and single aspect.
The Officer summarised his key points and stated that MOL policy had been applied sequentially
and the harms had been weighed against the benefits secured; very special circumstances were
demonstrated; the site was the appropriate ‘site of last resort’ to accommodate the replacement
leisure centre and new housing; this was not an EIA development; the quantum of residential
development did not exceed that necessary to facilitate delivery of the leisure centre, park
improvements and an acceptable level of affordable housing; the level of facilitating development
represented the optimum; the scheme minimised its impact on MOL openness; flood risks were
effectively mitigated; the incorporation of tall buildings was carefully considered; representations
were carefully and comprehensively assessed; and overall, in applying the Planning Balance, this
would be a suitable development.
The Committee was further informed that this would be a sustainable development in NPPF terms,
on its merits and in balancing the impacts and benefits in applying the Planning Balance, it was
therefore recommended by Officers that full planning permission be granted, following prior referral
to the Secretary of State, with conditions and subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement
and a Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London. The Stage 2 referral to the Mayor of London would
be carried out if the Secretary of State declined to call-in the application for his consideration.
A briefing note in respect of the application had been produced by Planning Officers, circulated to
the Committee and published on the Council’s website prior to the meeting. It had provided details
of amendments to the recommendation and further written representations.
Louise Simmonds, an objector to the development, made a representation to the Committee which
included the following key points:
• The housing mix and tenure did not meet the borough’s needs: there were not enough 3
bedroom family units and only 34.5% would be affordable housing. The new community
would be segregated due to a lack of pepper potting. The affordable units would be
excluded from the parking facilities, residents hub and roof garden which would all be
provided to the private units.
• Significant harm would be caused from the loss of daylight, sunlight and overshadowing.
The site was in a suburban area, however the assessments inaccurately used an urban 9
baseline. BRE guidelines would be breached for 52 homes and the new development
would get parkland views while the existing community would suffer.
• The proposal would cost £54,900,000, with half of the costs due to the expensive
basement and underground parking. A comparable development by Sports England
suggested that £18 million to £25 million would be a more appropriate figure.
Gregor Mitchell, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. The representation
made the following key points:
• The existing leisure centre closed and was no longer fit for purpose or viable to operate. The
proposed replacement leisure centre would be 45% bigger. It would still have a 50m pool but
the width would increase by 40%. There would be a moveable floor which to allow multiple
groups to use the main pool at the same time, for example, the pool may be used for school
lessons, family days out and national competitions. There would be a soft play centre for
younger children, a large gym and three studios with sprung floors.
• Since 2016, there had been 12 consultation events and engagement with local community
groups. Where possible, the design was changed to reflect the feedback from this
engagement. The applicant reduced height where possible, especially near to Peal Gardens
and tried to balance height with the need to deliver the improved leisure centre and
affordable homes whilst also trying to minimise the impact on the park.
• The project would deliver 599 new homes for Ealing, with 35% being affordable homes and
half of these being London Affordable Rent. The 403 private homes would cross fund the
affordable housing and the sport and leisure centre.
The Committee debated the proposal and in response to some of the questions and points raised,
Officers confirmed that:
• Block A would contain the London Affordable Rent units and block B would contain the
shared ownership units. The reason the units were separated, even though both blocks
would be managed by the same Council-owned operator, was to secure as much high
quality and affordable housing as possible. They believed it would be easier to reduce
service charges if the two types of tenues were separated. They did not focus on pepper
potting but rather on delivering high standard, tenure blind and mixed tenure housing across
the whole development.
• Whether very special circumstances had been met or not was a matter for the Council to
decide and not for the GLA to decide. If the Council did decide that very special
circumstances were met then the GLA would take this into account in their decision-making
process at stage 2.
• The scheme would include comprehensive flood risk management for the development
overall so there would be measures to avoid the flooding of the basement.
• The Council would manage the flood risk as it would retain ownership of the land.
• The proposed development started as an enabling development because in 2015 the
Council sought a development partner as a cross subsidy. However, following discussion
with GLA in 2019, the Council required the developer to have affordable housing in the
scheme to help the Council meet its objection to increase affordable housing provision. As
affordable housing was not necessary to cross subsidise a development, the scheme was
now a facilitating development.
• The whole of the proposed development, except the improvements to the park, would be
inappropriate development on Designated MOL. The proposed scheme would replace the
existing leisure centre and car park, both of which were also inappropriate developments.
• The site orientation was north-south and the sun path was primarily east-west and therefore
shading would only take place at certain parts of the day and certain parts of the year. The
site would remain primarily in sunlight.
• The service charges for the London Affordable Rent units for this scheme had not been
determined yet.
• In the event of a flood, the proposal provided for a balancing pond running from the
southeast to northwest through the park, containing flood water, carrying it away from the
site and then discharging the water into Brent river.
• London Wildlife Trust and Natural England were consulted and had no comments on the
application. The Council Leisure Department closely reviewed the application. The
Environment Agency suggested conditions in terms of ecological improvement in area.
• The income cap, set by the GLA and endorsed by the Council, was £90,000 per year for a 2
bedroom shared ownership unit. The maximum earning limit for this proposed scheme was
£66,000 per year for a 2 bedroom shared ownership unit, which was well within the income
cap.
• The lifecycle of the proposed pool plant was estimated to be 30 to 40 years.
• The size of the current BMX track was 50m by 30m.
• The internal floor areas for the residential units met the standards set by the London Plan in
terms of sizes.
• The 6 factors that were considered in determining the harm to MOL were not steps to be
applied sequentially. They can all be considered concurrently. Therefore, the proposed
development being inappropriate did not mean that the other 5 factors could not be
considered. The core of the report was to show that even though the development was
inappropriate, very special circumstances existed and therefore this application should be
granted.
• The zero land value was given consideration by Lambert Smith in their assessment of the
financial viability document.
• For the purposes of planning, officers conducted an independent financial viability
assessment during which the land value was assessed. However, this was not to be
confused with what was negotiated as part of the development agreement and the price
agreed with developer.
It was moved by Councillor Dabrowska and seconded by Councillor Young that consideration of the
application be deferred due to concerns about the accuracy of the information in the application
regarding the land value, which motion on being put to the vote was declared LOST.
Following further discussion, the Committee then proceeded to vote on the recommendation as
outlined in the report and amended in the briefing note.
RESOLVED:
That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF
201695FUL be REFUSED for the following reasons:
The NPPF indicated that inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt
(and by implication MOL which according to the London Plan is treated in the same way) and
should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In addition, there were adverse
impacts on openness and by definition harm caused by the scale, massing and design of the
development proposal. The benefits of the proposed development were therefore not deemed to outweigh the by definition harm to the MOL. Consequently, the very special circumstances
necessary to justify the development did not exist.