Skip to main content

Meetings

Meeting Details

Planning Committee
24 Jun 2021 - 19:00 to 22:00

Webcast / Youtube Link: CLICK HERE

 

  • Documents
  • Attendance
  • Declarations of Interests
  • Visitors

Documents

Agenda

Blank
Standard Items
Public Attendance at the Meeting:

This meeting will take place at the Victoria Hall in Ealing Town Hall and webcast live on the Council's YouTube site. We encourage any public intending to attend to watch remotely to reduce the risk of the spread of COVID.

Public Attendance is permitted in person, however, we ask that any members of the public planning to attend in person notifies us in advance by emailing democraticservices@ealing.gov.uk or calling 020 8825 6418. This is to ensure that there is sufficient capacity in the public gallery in the meeting room and that the Council can comply with social distancing requirements.

 

 

Membership:

Cllr Ray Wall (Chair),

 Cllr Shahbaz Ahmed, Cllr Praveen Anand,

 Cllr Mohammed Aslam, Cllr Jon Ball,

 Cllr Paul Conlan, Cllr Fabio Conti,

 Cllr Julian Gallant, Cllr Tariq Mahmood,

 Cllr Swaran Padda, Cllr Miriam Rice,

 Cllr Kamaldeep Sahota, Cllr Chris Summers

 

1 Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

To note any apologies for absence and substitutions.


Cllr Sumner provided apologies for lateness.
Cllr Anand provided apologies for absence.

Cllr Louise Brett substituted for Cllr Paul Conlan.

2 Urgent Matters

To consider any urgent matters that the Chair has agreed should be considered at the meeting.


There were none.

3 Declarations of Interest

To note any declarations of interest made by members.


There were none.

4 Matters to be Considered in Private

To determine whether items contain information that is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.


There were none.


5 Minutes

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2021.

 

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on 19 May 2021.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting were agreed as a true and accurate record of proceedings. 

6 Site Visit Attendance

To share site visit details and note site visit attendance.

 


There were none.

Public Items

John Robertson, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application sought permission for residential redevelopment of a narrow backland site which was overgrown and contained derelict buildings formerly in education use. It was bounded by the rear gardens of two storey residential dwellings on Hanson Gardens, Beaconsfield Road and Lewis Road. Access was via two narrow gated entrances adjoining dwellings along Hanson Gardens.

The Officer explained that the proposal was for the development of 9 dwellings, comprising 3 single storey detached houses; 4 x 2 storey detached houses and a 2-storey building comprising 2 flats; associated landscaping, cycle parking, refuse storage and access (following demolition of existing buildings).

The Officer reported that all of the proposed dwellings would exceed minimum London Plan floorspace sizes, would be dual aspect and receive adequate light and outlook. All the proposed dwellings would have private amenity space and on balance, it was considered that the units would have adequate amounts of provision, in terms of size and quality.

It was further explained that this application was deferred at the 19 May 2021 Planning Committee meeting in order to:

1. Arrange a site visit or to provide photographs and a video walk-through of the site for the Committee to view.

2. Confirm the exact width of the access to the site. This was now measured at between 3.16m and 3.26m.

3. Provide the Committee with information on alternative uses considered for the site. The applicant had now provided details of these.

4. Provide the Committee with the Appeal Inspector’s decision on the recent hotel appeal. This was appended to the report.



A video walk-through and photographs of the site was displayed on a large screen for the Committee to view.

The Committee heard that the proposal would not lead to a loss of social infrastructure premises because evidence had been provided that: the site had been vacant for 25 years; the site was overgrown; and buildings were derelict and unsafe. Therefore, the former education was considered to be abandoned.

The Officer reported that the applicant had provided an assessment of current supply and need for community uses in the Southall area which confirmed that the site was not required for other forms of local social infrastructure.

It was explained that the proposed buildings would be between 1 and 2 storeys in height and lower than the residential properties surrounding the site. The existing derelict buildings covered 66% of the site and the proposal would reduce this coverage to 37%. The proposed units would all have flat roofs and a contemporary design. The massing of the development across the site would be reduced by significant gaps between buildings.

The Officer reported that the scale and height of the buildings would be broadly similar to the hotel buildings which were the subject of a recent appeal. The Appeal Inspector concluded that the single and 2 storey hotel buildings would be largely hidden from public view along neighbouring residential roads and many of the hotel blocks would be screened by buffer landscaping and outbuildings in adjoining rear gardens. The Appeal Inspector had also concluded that the hotel building would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. The Officer informed the Committee that, taking account of the appeal inspector’s conclusions, it was considered the design of the proposed development was acceptable.

The Committee heard that there were objections by 30 individual residents and a petition signed by 28 residents and 2 councillors. There was also an objection from Ealing Civic Society. There were a number of issues raised which were acknowledged and addressed in the Committee report.

The Officer stated that the proposal would not have unacceptable impacts on the amenity of adjoining residential occupiers in terms of overlooking, overbearing effects or impacts on daylight due to: the separation distances between it and nearby dwellings; the low scale of the proposed dwellings; the position and orientation of windows; and the screening effect of boundary trees and outbuildings. Also, the Daylight/Sunlight Assessment concluded that the proposal would have limited effect on daylight to neighbouring residential properties and there would be negligible reductions in sunlight in the rear gardens.

It was explained that access to the site would be via the existing access road with a turning head opposite the entrance to allow for refuse/emergency vehicles. The Officer reported that the width of the access was 3.26m which was more than the minimum required for emergency vehicles to be able to access the site. Additionally, the swept path analysis showed that the access path was sufficient for a small refuse vehicle to access, collect and depart from the site.

The Officer stated that there were only 3 parking spaces proposed and a Section 106 agreement would prevent occupants of the scheme obtaining resident parking permits. The site had good public transport accessibility. Therefore, there would be no significant traffic impact on the local road network.

It was reported that the proposal included various sustainability measures and potential impacts relating to air quality, noise and land contamination could be adequately dealt with by the proposed conditions.

It was recommended by Officers that full planning permission be granted with conditions and subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement and a Community Infrastructure Levy payment to the Greater London Authority (GLA).

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 relating to the recent hotel appeal inspection and whether the Appeal Inspector had the relevant information with regard to the abandonment of the education use on the site. The briefing notes also stated that further representation was received and that the Applicant had provided an assessment of current supply and need for community uses in the Southall area.

Chasham Mitra, an objector to the development, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points:

• There was disparity in the Planning Officer’s reports in relation to the access width and the minimum width required for emergency vehicles to access the site. The width of the access was stated to be 3.3m at the Planning Committee meeting on 19 May 2021 and it was stated to be between 3.1m to 3.26m during the Planning Committee meeting on 24 June 2021. With regard to the minimum width required for emergency vehicle access to the site, during the meeting in May it was stated to be 3.25m and during the June meeting it was stated to be 3.1m. Furthermore, the swept path analysis was based on the incorrect 3.3m width figure.

• Paragraph 6.73 of the Manual Street Volume 1 stated that a 3.7m carriageway (kerb to kerb) was required for operating space at the scene of a fire. To simply reach a fire, the access route could be reduced to 2.75 m over short distances, provided the pump appliance can get to within 45m of dwelling entrances. However, the access to the closest dwelling for this proposal would be approximately 80m from the entrance.

• It was unclear whether Planning Officers had independently verified the Applicant’s submissions. This was particularly important given there was uncertainty about the access width and this was a fundamental component to the planning application.

• Access to the site was inadequate which would compromise the safety of the residents. The proposed refuse plans would result in bins being left at the entrance, further restricting access and causing public nuisance.

• The Appeal Inspector’s report concluded that harm would arise from the failure to demonstrate that the social infrastructure could not be developed on the site. The Appeal Inspector was aware of the relevant information relating to abandonment of the education use on the site. Additionally, the Applicant was relying on a Social Needs Assessment based on a nearby site on Beaconsfield Road rather than carrying out a new Assessment of the site itself. There was also no community consultation or marketing for social use of the site.

• Four out of the nine proposed units would not meet Policy 7D requirements for amenity space.



Kate Matthews, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. The representation made the following key points:

 • The site was formerly in use by Southall College but it had been vacant for over 20 years. The existing education use had been abandoned. The buildings had fallen into disrepair. The Appeal Inspector was not aware that the education use had been abandoned. The site was within a Southall Opportunity Area and it presented a great opportunity for regeneration.

• The community infrastructure review for the site on Beaconsfield Road was recently carried out in 2020. That site was within 150m from the application site. Kate Matthews had checked the sources referenced in the community infrastructure review and confirmed that the data used in that report was still the latest available information.

• Following the last committee, the applicant carried out 2 site visits on 2 occasions. After the 3.26m measurement on June 7 2021 it appeared that an adjoining wall had been moved to reduce the width to 3.16m. Photographic evidence was provided to the Planning Officer to show this. The applicant was informed by a Transport Consultant that the swept path analysis would still be applicable to the 3.16m width.

• The applicant would agree to a further condition stating that all properties must have sprinkler systems in place. Kate Matthews stated that there would be no need for fire engines to enter the site due to the sprinkler systems.

• The proposed refuge arrangement had been permitted elsewhere in Ealing, such as 10-12 The Mall. The arrangement would ensure the bins stay in its designated area.

 

Councillor Chohan, a local Ward Councillor, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points:

 • There were clear discrepancies in the width of the access presented in the report for the May meeting and the report for the June meeting. It was important for transparency that officers make their rationale and frameworks consistent to avoid the sense that goalposts may change to suit the requirements of developers. There was still a lack of clarity around the minimum requirements for the access width.

• The waste removal site may obstruct to the single exit and entry and the plan would create street clutter.

• Hansen Gardens is a cul de sac with many children and elderly living there. They require ample paving space for socially distanced walks.

• The application had insufficient mitigation measures against the increased parking pressures near the area. The report referred to ample parking during CPZ hours, however new residents would not have permits to access CPZ.

• There was no fresh evidence provided by the developers to suggest that the site could not be used for alternative social use. There were more homes being built but there was a loss of social infrastructure, contributing to poorer quality of life for Southall residents.

• There were concerns relating to air quality as the site was near the Southall Waterside development.

The Committee asked questions and debated the proposal. In response to some of the questions and points raised, Officers confirmed that:

 • There were two different measurements for the access width. Both measurements were adequate for vehicle access according to the Manual Street Volume 1.

• Fire engines measure at 3.1m, mirror to mirror. Fire engines would be able to enter the site. Additionally, each dwelling would also have a sprinkler system in place.

• There was an assessment for a site less than 100m away to determine if there was a social infrastructure need in the area. That assessment was carried out less than 6 months ago. It covered the same area, the same supply of community facilities and it assessed the same needs. Therefore, if the applicant had carried out a new bespoke assessment for this application site the results should be almost identical to assessment for the nearby site.

• Six out of nine gardens exceed the Ealing Policy 7D target of 50 sqm for a house. Three out of nine gardens were only marginally below the 50 sqm target at 42sqm, 45sqm and 48sqm.

• The private refuge collection was a common feature in a lot of planning applications. The Council’s Waste and Street Services section reviewed the proposed refuse arrangements and raised no objections. • A turning head would be at the entrance to the site to facilitate vehicular access and egress. The waste collection vehicle would enter the site, collect the bins and turn around to exit the site.

• The application site was located in a CPZ and had a PTAL rating of 3. Future residents would be precluded from obtaining a permit in the area by a Section 106 Agreement.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the Application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 205302FUL be GRANTED subject to:

1. Conditions as set out in the Committee Report.
2. A further condition requiring the applicant to obtain an approved fire strategy in consultation with the local authority and to implement the findings of the fire strategy.
3. Satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
4. Conditions of Consent. 5. Community Infrastructure Levy payment to the Greater London Authority (GLA).


Olivier Nelson, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that this application sought permission for the redevelopment of a backland site to provide 81 rooms of co-living accommodation with communal areas with social spaces, meetings areas, communal areas, laundry services and large working kitchens. The proposal would comprise of a 10 storey building with room accommodation on floors 1 and above.

It was explained that the site was within the Ealing Town Conservation area.

The Officer reported that previously the site had been granted planning permission for a 38 co-living room scheme (part 5, part 6 storey building) and a 71 co-living room scheme (8 storey building). The Officer explained that the current proposal sought to develop a 10 storey building to provide 81 co-living rooms with affordable housing provision on site.

It was further reported that the current application sought to increase the size of the co-living units. The room sizes would range from 15.1sqm to 23.6 sqm. There would be 8 rooms that would be wheelchair compliant. The application now proposed 28 affordable units whereas in previous planning applications it was 25 units. The 28 units would be rented at London Living Rent for the Ealing Broadway ward, with 16 of the rooms at 80% market rent and 12 of the rooms at 70% market rent. The rent would be inclusive of service charges and the use of all amenities at the site.

The Committee heard that the current proposal sought an increase in height to 29m, with the top storey set back from the front. The height was not GLA referable.

It was stated that the previous granting of applications on the site were assessed against Policy H18 of the Draft London Plan (which later became Policy H16). Policy H16 required co-living developments to make an off-site contribution. The proposal would meet the majority of points in the Policy H16 as: it was good quality design; it contributed to mixed and inclusive neighbourhoods; each unit would be offered a minimum 3 month tenancy; community facilities and services would be provided with convenient access to a communal kitchen and community space inside and outside; laundry and drying facilities; 24/7 concierge; bedding and linen changing; and room cleaning services. The proposal would provide private rooms with additional functional living space and layout and none of these rooms would be self-contained.

The Officer explained that the applicant would make a financial contribution to the London Borough. It was explained that there was a need for more shared housing with small purpose rooms and shared amenity spaces according to the West London Strategic Housing Market Assessment. The proposed application would meet an emerging need, as supported within the SHMA and London Plan. The proposal would seek to provide much needed shared accommodation.

The Committee were made aware that site location was in an urban location with a very high PTAL rating of 6b. Therefore, the site is very accessible. It had good access to public transport and community facilities such as parks. The proposal was a car free development and there would be cycle parking provision.

The Officer stated that the proposal would be compatible with neighbouring land uses as there was a mix of commercial and residential accommodation in the area.

It was recommended by Officers that full planning permission be granted with conditions and subject to completion of a Section 106 agreement.

The Committee asked questions and debated the proposal. In response to some of the questions and points raised, Officers confirmed that:

• The width of the proposed building would remain the same. The height would increase by an additional 6m. The highest part of the proposed building would be set back from the front by 3.2m. The set back at the top level would help to reduce the impact on longer views within the Conservation Area.

• The proposed building would not have a negative effect on the skyline in the area.

• The proposed building would not have a significant effect on the Conservation Area and the nearby Listed Building.

• Some of the private rooms would be smaller than proposed in previous planning applications to allow for the creation of 10 additional rooms. However, the amenity space would be larger than proposed in the previous planning application.

• The site could be accessed from the front and there would also be vehicle access to the sides of the building. • There was a Construction Logistics Plan that was granted for the 71 co-living scheme and this scheme would seek to follow that plan.

• The windows would be non-opening at the rear and mechanical air ventilation would be going into the co-living rooms. Due to the distance of the proposed building from the main road, it was considered that there would be an acceptable level of noise.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the Application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 210038FUL be GRANTED subject to:

1. Conditions as set out in the Committee Report.
2. Satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

Demetri Prevatt, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that this application sought permission for the redevelopment of a 0.6 hectare mixed use property on the western side of Hanger Lane to form a fifty-nine room, fifty-nine person co-living within a part three, part four, part five, part six-storey building with two basement levels. The development would have associated amenity, cycle parking, waste storage, and vehicle parking spaces.

It was explained that the site was on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and it was currently occupied by a 2 storey dwelling house (“host property”). As the host property was on MOL, its redevelopment was required to meet exception tests provided by NPPF before it could be considered an appropriate use of MOL. The relevant test was detailed at paragraph 145 of the NPPF and required the development to: a) be on previously developed land; b) meet an identified affordable housing need and c) avoid causing substantial harm to the openness of the Hanger Hill MOL.

The Officer stating that the proposal passed the relevant exception tests by meeting an identified affordable housing need without causing harm to the openness of the MOL. The Officer reported that the proposed building would fit in with its surroundings and constitute a positive addition to the local townscape, street scene along Hanger Lane and the setting of the MOL. Moreover, the applicant had agreed to make a financial contribution of £1.9 million to be put toward providing off-site, low-cost rental housing within the borough.

The Committee heard that there would be 59 private rooms and common space. Common space would include: gym space; lounge space; cinema room; communal kitchen, dining and living space areas; and outdoor terraces.

The Officer stated that 45 parties objected to the application. They were concerned about various planning considerations which were acknowledged and addressed in the Committee report. It was recommended by Officers that full planning permission be granted with conditions and subject to: a Stage 2 referral to the Greater London Authority (GLA); completion of Section 106 and 278 agreements and conditions set out in the Committee Report.

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: additional supporting information relating to financial viability; amendment to condition 24; correction to paragraph 1 on Page 21; and included two computer generated images of proposed development.

Robert Gurd, an objector to the development, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points:

• The objection was made on behalf of Ealing Civic Centre; local residents’ groups and St Augustine’s Priory Girls’ School.

• There would be substantial harm caused to the openness to the MOL by this development. Allowing such a substantial increase in development on MOL would set a bad precedent for other sites on MOL across the borough. There would be a large increase in massing on the site if the current 2 storey build was replaced by a large 6 storey build. A volume assessment was not carried out to determine the impact by the increased massing and density.

• The Committee Officer incorrectly stated that Ada Lovelace CoE was built on MOL. The school’s site was de-designated from MOL following a public hearing to allow the 4 storey school building to be developed. As the Council sought to de-designate land from MOL to allow a 4 storey building to be developed, the Committee should reject this application for a 10 storey building to be developed.

• There would be poor quality accommodation and basement level living. The lack of amenity space and the effect of poor air quality would be harmful to prospective residents.

• There would also be impact on traffic on the North Circular Road. Nick Sutton, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. The representation made the following key points:

• The proposal was originally submitted as a 5 storey scheme comprising 48 co-living units which would have delivered an overall off-site housing contribution of £360,000. However, following consultation with the Mayor of London and the Council’s viability consultants, it was concluded that the affordable housing contribution could be increased up to £1.9 million by adding an additional floor without resulting in substantial harm to openness of the MOL.

• There would be no substantial harm to the openness of the MOL because the site was not currently open land. Instead the site was a previously developed site surrounded by other areas of open land which in itself contribute to the openness of this part of the MOL. Additionally, although the current building is relatively small, it is surrounded by other outbuildings and hardstanding formerly used as a builder’s yard which was incongruous with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the MOL. These uses provided no public benefit in the form of low cost or affordable housing and nor did they contribute to the emerging townscape or landscape setting of the site.

• Although the proposal would be taller and wider than the existing buildings, it would occupy a relatively small part of the wider MOL and therefore its impact on openness would be negligible.

• The proposal would provide a substantial affordable housing contribution that would facilitate the delivery of other affordable housing elsewhere in the borough.

Councillor Stafford, a local Ward Councillor, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points:

• MOL was already much reduced due to some MOL land being de-designated to build a school and granting this application would contribute to a greater reduction in MOL. There would also be negative impact on the remaining MOL due to the height and massing of the proposed development. The application sought to overdevelop a very small site.

• The application sought to establish a massive HMO.

• The poor quality units was concerning, particularly the poor living conditions in the units at basement level. There was also insufficient amenity space in the proposal. The air quality would also be very poor standard as the building would be next to the busy and polluted North Circular Road.

The Committee asked questions and debated the proposal. In response to some of the questions and points raised, Officers confirmed that:

•  The proposal was in compliance with Policy H16 of the London Plan which clearly stated that affordable housing should not be provided on site and it should be provided off-site.

• Condition 10 would address concerns relating to air quality. • The distance between neighbouring buildings would be sufficient to prevent overshadowing.

• The proposal had passed the NPPF exemption test and therefore it was appropriate for development to occur at the site.

• There would be a small amount of overshadowing at the basement level but that can be addressed by design solutions. There would be lightwells which would provide lighting to all but 2 units at the basement level.

• There was a condition requiring the applicant to submit a service and delivery plan which must be approved by the Council.

• One of the conditions of the development would be to limit the occupancy to 59 people and therefore it would not be a child-friendly development.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the Application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 202253FUL be GRANTED subject to:

1. A Stage 2 referral to the Greater London Authority (GLA);
2. Completion of Section 106 and 278 agreements and;
3. Conditions set out in the Committee Report.

10 Date of Next Meeting

The next meeting will be held on Wednesday 21 July 2021.

 


It was noted that the next scheduled meeting would be held on Wednesday 21 July 2021.

The meeting of the Committee concluded at 9:25pm.

Declarations of Interests

Member NameItem Ref.DetailsNature of DeclarationAction
No declarations of interest have been entered for this meeting.

Visitors

Visitor Information is not yet available for this meeting