Meeting documents

Apologies were received from Councillor Julian Bell with no substitute.

It was noted that Councillor Linda Burke had attended the meeting virtually and although she would be able to ask questions and contribute to the debate, she would not be able to vote on any of the applications as she had not attended in person.

There were none.

Councillor Julian Gallant declared that with respect to agenda item 8, the South Acton Estate regeneration master plan, he lived in the Mill Hill Conservation Area.

Councillor Shahbaz Ahmed declared that with respect to agenda item 7, The Transport Yard, Wood End Gardens, Northolt, he was a local Ward Councillor.

There were none.

There were none on this occasion.

Councillor Tariq Mahmood, Councillor Jon Ball, Councillor Linda Burke and Councillor Simon Woodroofe attended site visits.

Harini Boteju, Senior Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the proposed site was brownfield industrial land of approximately 0.59 hectares, located to the east of Wood End Gardens, Northolt. The site abutted the borough boundary with Harrow and was adjacent to Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) present within Ealing and Harrow.

It was explained that, in January 2021 outline planning permission, 173416OUT, was granted for 60 new homes, of which 18 homes would be affordable. The scheme comprised four blocks of 4 to 5 storey building with 71 car parking spaces and 176 cycle parking spaces. Associated landscaping, which was arranged as communal gardens, public open space, play and private amenity spaces was secured as reserved matters. The consent was supported by financial contributions of 460,184 and non-monetary contributions secured by a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

It was further explained that the application now before Members sought to expand on the extant permission, 173416OUT, in order to provide a further 89 new homes, that would amount to 149 new homes in total. To accommodate the increased housing, taller blocks of up to 9-storeys were proposed. Seventy-four car parking spaces, 280 cycle parking spaces, associated landscaping and refuse storage was also proposed. Financial contributions of 1,057,468.67 would be secured by a Section 106 Legal Agreement, and reserved matters would seek further details for landscaping. It was noted that the proposal had not been appraised by the Design Review Panel or Community Review Panel.

The Committee was informed that the proposed design of the buildings would be arranged as 3 blocks, A, B and C. Block 'A' would comprise 2 buildings each 4 storey in height, similar to the extant permission. Block B and C would have a maximum height of 8 and 9 storeys, respectively, where the top floor would be set-in, and the heights of the building would be stepped from 5 storey upwards.

The Committee was further informed that the proposed housing mix comprised of 65 one-bedroom units, 61 two-bedroom units, 20 three-bedroom units and 3 three-bedroom units. Block A would contain 24 new homes, one of which would be suitable for a wheelchair user. Block B would contain 56 new homes, 9 of which would be suitable for wheelchair users. Block C would contain 69 new homes, 5 of which would be suitable for wheelchair users. All new homes would be provided with private amenity space; and the majority would be dual aspect. The ground floor units would have private front or rear garden areas, whilst the upper floors would have balconies that varied in size from 7sqm or greater; and the top floors would have wrap-around terraces. In line with the London Housing SPG, 35% affordable housing would be provided by habitable room. This equated to 48 units, of which 26 would be for London Affordable Rent (LAR); 16 for Shared ownership (SO); and 6 for discount market rent (DMR). The remaining 101 units would be private.

With planning conditions and obligations secured through a Section 106 Legal Agreement, the proposal was considered to comply with policies D3, D5, D6, D7, D9, H1, H2, H4 H12 and the good growth objectives GG2 and GG4 in terms of change of use, housing provision and building design. In relation to sustainability, the proposal would comply with policies T5, T6, T7, G1, G3, G5, G7, SI1, SI3, SI4 and SI13. It was therefore recommended by officers that the application be approved.

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 information on some amendments that had been made to the conditions, further representations that had been received and further information with respect to the proposed housing mix.

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

• The number of flats proposed constituted over-development of a fairly small site. The proposed development was out of keeping with the rest of the neighbourhood. One of the tower blocks would rise to 9-storeys which was too high.
• The number of flats currently under construction in the London Borough of Ealing was more than enough to meet Ealing's current building targets. Did it make sense to be building even more? At Greenford Quays and the Kellogg Tower development the number of flats was enormous. The area needed more houses, not more flats.

• Please use your vote to reject this planning application. The Wood End Residents' Association and the very large number of people who have raised objections to these plans expect you to do this as the application is both unnecessary and unreasonable and if approved will affect and harm our lives for years to come.

   

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

   

• The vacant and underutilised site benefitted from an extent and implementable planning permission for 60 units. The same approved access and sighting of the three blocks were proposed in this latest scheme and the proposal sought to increase the number of units to 149 with 48 much-needed affordable housing units mixed rental and shared equity tenure being fully policy compliant.
• The design of the proposed scheme and podium deck will provide a gateway development that would enhance the visual and physical connection with the MOL in the future.
• The scheme provided a balanced mix of one, two and three-bedroom units and would be compliant with internal space standards, carbon reduction policy and amenity space provision.

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

• The London Borough of Ealing had a huge housing shortage.
• There were thousands of people on the housing waiting list in need of a home.
• Many people were given no choice but to have to stay in temporary accommodation including bed and breakfasts and hostels.

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

• There would be a single route for public access to the MOL.
• Land contamination would be dealt with by having conditions put in place and the applicant would be required to provide a series of reports to show what the contamination levels were and how they would deal with it.
• The London Plan moved more towards increasing sustainable methods of transport such as walking and cycling and so the development was not determined to require an increase in the frequency of trains and local buses.
• Construction traffic management would be controlled by a Construction Management Plan.
• The development would unlock the access to the MOL which may otherwise remain unused.
• As part of the Section 106 contributions, money would be provided to enhance the local area which would benefit the local community.
• A tall building in the area was felt to be appropriate because of its location next to a railway line. Impacts towards residential buildings would not be so significant as they were set back further away.
• Paragraph 138 of NPPF encouraged recycling of derelict land and other urban land for urban regeneration.

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 214662OUT be GRANTED subject to:

1. Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent.
2. Satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.
3. Satisfactory completion of a Section 278 Agreement.

Tiago Jorge, Principal Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that permission was sought to agree a reserved matters application for Plots 9.3, 9.5 and 9.6 of the South Acton Estate regeneration master plan. The Reserved Matters application proposed refurbishment of existing houses, new houses and flat development that would form the last residential development Phases within the Enfield Road Character Area of the South Acton Estate Regeneration Scheme. Overall, the application proposed to complete the western portion of the masterplan area with the construction of new buildings varying in height from 3 to 9 storeys comprising 215 residential units including the retention and refurbishment of 8 terraced dwellings within Plot 9.3 comprising of 663 habitable rooms.

It was explained that a total of 331 habitable rooms were proposed to be provided as affordable housing with 264 as Affordable Rent and 67 as Shared Ownership. This equated to a total 49.9% provision which was itself split 80% Affordable Rent and 20% Shared Ownership on a habitable room basis. The development would be tenure blind with no distinguishable difference between the appearances of the various tenures of accommodation.

It was further explained that the proposals for Plot 9.3 comprised terraced housing while Plots 9.5 and 9.6 proposed a U-shaped, courtyard-style building. The proposed courtyard-style layouts within Plots 9.5 and 9.6 would enable active frontage to be delivered along the surrounding streets, whilst simultaneously creating courtyards which were shielded from views along the public highway, but which opened onto the neighbouring allotments. This arrangement also ensured that the maximum amount of daylight and sunlight was received by the allotment land.

The Committee was informed that the Reserved Matters proposal was considered to provide a high-quality residential development that would positively contribute to the wider-regeneration aspirations for South Acton and continue the Council's Estate Regeneration Programme. Based off the assessment of the proposal undertaken it was recommended by officers that the application be approved, subject to conditions.

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. There were no further updates.

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

• A condition would be put in place with respect to boundary treatment for the allotments.
• There would be part retention of some of the allotments and there would be more allotments delivered to the west of the existing ones.
• The tenure split would be mixed throughout the scheme.
• Every time a new application was received for the site the applicant was asked to demonstrate how each phase fitted with the other phases, so the reconciliation mechanism gave a cumulative assessment of how the progress of the master plan was being implemented successfully or not.

The Committee then proceeded to vote on the Application.

UNANIMOUSLY RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 215892REM be GRANTED subject to:

1. Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent.

Sean Moulton, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the proposal was for a five-storey residential development comprising of 24 self-contained flats, 15 one-bedroom flats, 4 two-bedroom flats and 5 three-bedroom flats, an internal access road, two disabled car parking spaces, cycle parking and refuse storage. The entrance to the flats would be located on the western side of the building at ground floor level and lift access would be provided to all floors.

It was explained that the site had a previous permission, which had been presented to Planning Committee in 2013, PP/2013/1074, which had subsequently been varied by 171850VAR dated 17 November 2017, 193202VAR dated 3 March 2020 and 212633NMA dated 12 May 2021, confirming the footprint, bulk and mass being consistent with the extant permission. It was noted that the previous consents had been implemented.

It was further explained that the amended unit mix was a logical response to the building, given its location adjacent to Acton Central Overground Station and proximity to local public transport links and parks. The number of one-bedroom units had increased from 4 to 15, whilst the number of three-bedroom units had fallen slightly from 6 to 5. The affordable housing offering had been increased by 10,000 compared to the extant permission, offering 285,000, despite the number of occupants to the site declining by 1 from 71 to 70. All units would be dual-aspect, and all would have private amenity space.

The design refinements had sought to improve the overall massing, materiality and presentation of the building as viewed from Acton Park and surrounding sites. The proposed building would incorporate a more logical, coherent layout and massing and utilise a more neutral colour palette with green walls, in order to allow the colour of the existing landscaping within Acton Park to resonate.

The Committee was informed that the proposal would accord with the relevant National, Strategic and Local Planning policies and guidance. It was therefore recommended by officers that the application be approved subject to conditions and the completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

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 information on further representations that had been received and some notes and clarifications.

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

• The planning application had firstly been submitted in 2013 and nothing had been reviewed since then and so what was agreed then should not be applied now.
• The development would affect many local people.
• Only 272 local households were informed of the plans.

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

• Community engagement was extremely important, and we hope that this has been evidenced by the five consultation events that had been held which had included two targeted workshops at Ark Byron Academy meeting individually with over 30 stakeholders and residents extending the determination period to allow conversations to create positive outcomes.
• During the consultation process it had become clear that all members of the local community were not aware of the existing consent that had been granted and implemented. Once this was established, we were able to focus on the far greater benefits of the current proposal versus the implemented scheme which in many ways was no longer appropriate for its setting particularly in relation to the school which was not operational at the time the planning process began.
• The proposal sought to reconfigure the consented implemented massing with only five square meters added and a reduction in total residence to deliver 24 homes for owner occupiers all meeting or exceeding policy space and amenity standards and by providing flexibility for residents such as home working areas.

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

• The proposed development would be car free except for two disabled parking spaces which would both have electric charging points in place, one would be live and the other would be ready to be connected.
• Since the extant permission there had been a change in the consultation process for planning applications. The current application would have been consulted via site notices displayed in the local area but in addition to that there had been consultation undertaken by the applicant. All comments that had been received had been considered by Planning Officers during assessment.
• An indicative Construction Management Plan had been put in place and the Council's transport team had spoken with the applicant directly regarding the level crossing and had not expressed any significant concerns.
• The number of one-bedroom units had increased from 4 to 15, whilst the number of three-bedroom units had fallen slightly from 6 to 5.

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 214950FUL be GRANTED subject to:

1. Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent.
2. Satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

It was noted that the next Planning Committee meeting was scheduled for Wednesday 19 January 2022, however, that date was likely to be changed. Members would be informed, and the Council's website would be updated in due course.

The Chair expressed his thanks on behalf of the Committee to all of the Council's Officers for their hard work during 2021 and wished everyone a Happy Christmas.

The meeting of the Committee concluded at 9:18pm.