Agenda and minutes

To note any apologies for absence and substitutions.

Apologies were received from Councillor Mahmood. Councillor Padda was his substitute.

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

There were none.

To note any declarations of interest made by members.

Councillors R Wall and Brett both declared that they had once been parishioners of St Joseph’s Church. However, they did not deem these to be pecuniary or prejudicial interests in the application.

Councillor P Anand declared that he had previous acquaintances with the owner of the site. However, Councillor Anand confirmed that he had no pecuniary interest in the development, nor had he discussed this application with the owner or the developer.

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.

There are none on this occasion.

There were none on this occasion.

To share site visit details and note site visit attendance.

Councillors Brett, Busuttil, Gallant, Iqbal, Kelly, Kohli and Padda had attended site visits prior to the meeting.

Joel Holland, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the committee involved the redevelopment of the existing Gold’s Gym site on Uxbridge Road in Hanwell to include extensions to accommodate a nine-storey building and part 4 and part 5 storey outrigger. The proposal also involved alterations to the front elevation of the existing building. The site would continue to be occupied by Gold’s Gym over the ground and first floor levels, but the existing commercial unit would be relocated to a more centralised location at the frontage of the site. The extensions to the building would enable the building to accommodate 43 residential units, providing a mix of 1 and 2 bedroom flats.

It was further explained that the site was well connected in terms of public transport, being a short distance from Hanwell Crossrail Station on the Elizabeth Line and existing on a high frequency bus route which offered express services along the Uxbridge Road corridor. The site was also located within the Hanwell District Centre, which the London Plan supported for optimisation and mixed-use developments. It was noted that the site was surrounded by a number of heritage assets, which included the Church of Our Lady and St Joseph (Locally Listed), St Mellitus’ Church (Grade II Listed) and the Hanwell Clock Tower and Hanwell Cemeteries Conservation Areas. Mr Holland highlighted that the associated report on this application contained extensive assessment of the proposal’s impact on these assets.

The Committee was informed that planning officers had considered the proposed development to represent a high quality development, which would regenerate the large site with a compliant amount of affordable housing. 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 additional objections received and officers’ responses to them and an amendment to the justification given by officers in the report.

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

·         The proposal would impact on the character of the Uxbridge Road, with the proposed building deemed to relate badly to the neighbouring churches and heritage assets.

·         The outrigger was deemed to protrude too far out towards the street, and concerns were raised that parts of the building would overshadow the neighbouring presbytery.

·         The proposal was compared to the Marshall Street Tower, with it suggested that the proposal was for a taller building which protruded into the road and neighbouring areas far more.

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

·         Hanwell was a hidden treasure in London but had limited opportunities for the necessary new housing schemes to be developed. The proposal optimised the existing site, meeting the 35%  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

John Robertson, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the committee sought permission for the demolition of 8 industrial units and 10 flats in the Westgate Triangle and the construction of a mixed-use development ranging between 7 and 13 storeys. The new development comprised of new light industrial floorspace, office floorspace, café floorspace and 326 flats, including 112 affordable units.

It was further explained that the site lay on the north side of the A40 just west of the Hanger Lane Gyratory. The Central Line railway adjoined the southern boundary and part of the HS2 rail line ran below the site. Part of the site was able to be seen from the nearby Brentham Garden Estate, Brunswick and Hanger Hill (Haymills) Estate Conservation Areas. It was noted that the site formed part of a Strategic Industrial Location (SIL), and, given the application included an increase of industrial units, the applicant had carried out work in consultation with the GLA, Ealing Council and adjoining landowners to identify opportunities for industrial intensification elsewhere in the vicinity. 

On balance, officers considered that the proposed development provided several planning and regeneration benefits. It was therefore recommended by officers that the application be approved subject to conditions, the completion of a Section 106, Section 38 and Section 278 Legal Agreements and a Stage II referral to the Mayor of London.

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 late objections to the application and corrections to the original report.

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

·       Residents were opposed to the size and density of the development, with concerns about the practicality of the mix of uses on the site. There had been comparisons with repurposed office buildings on Ealing Road, but it was emphasised that the two sites had different contexts.

·       Access to the site was not suitable, with the road noted as narrow. Whilst a report had noted that there had only been 2 accidents on the road, this was deemed to mean little given that no families lived in the area.

·       Since the residential areas were bounded mostly by industrial units, there was doubt whether the area would be nice to live in for families. The amenity spaces appeared to be designed more for aesthetics than for use.

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

·       The proposal aimed to optimise the use of the site, providing better quality industrial floor space, new office space and important new affordable housing.

·       The site was suitable for mixed use development because of its unique location on transport routes and the range of office spaces already in the area. The applicant had produced a masterplan for the site which demonstrated that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

John Robertson, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the committee sought permission for a residential led redevelopment of a derelict commercial site just south of Southall town centre.

The proposal was to provide 95 flats by way of a part 23, part 19 storey and part 14 storey building. A flexible community/amenity space was proposed at ground floor level for use by residents and the local community. The development would be car free and included 181 cycle parking spaces. Communal outdoor amenity space was proposed on the first and 14th floor levels. It was noted, however, that whilst 35% of residential units by habitable room would be affordable, the proposed tenure split was 30% London Affordable Rent and 70% shared ownership. It therefore did not meet the Council’s preferred tenure mix.

The Committee was informed that it was considered that the proposed development would provide a number of planning and regeneration benefits, including a sizeable increase in the housing stock, provision of community space and positive contributions through section 106 legal agreement and Community Infrastructure Levy. It was therefore recommended by officers that the application be approved subject to conditions, the completion of Section 106 and Section 278 Legal Agreements, a Stage II referral to the Mayor of London 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 information on amendments to the recommendations since the report was published, noting that the application sought permission for one less flat than originally stated in the report.

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

·       It was disagreed that the building was compliant with London Plan Policy D9 regarding criteria for tall buildings.

·       The addition of a tall building on the site threatened the heritage of the Southall, and would impact on its historic townscape and residents’ sense of place.

·       The proposal did not include enough affordable housing.

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

·       Placing emphasis on social value, the applicants had consulted with the local community and decided to include the ground floor community space.

·       The existing derelict building was a blight; the proposed development would be an improvement, with high calibre architecture.

·       The application included sizeable financial contributions to the local community through section 106 legal agreement, which included funding for a review of the nearby parking zones.

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

·       The existing building was neither in a conservation area nor locally listed. The committee was informed that, in any case, the applicant had already received approval to demolish the existing building.

·       The affordable mix had been accepted  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

Joel Holland, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that there were two related applications before the committee on this item. The applications were for a non-material amendment (221396NMA) and for the approval of reserved matters (221501REM) relating to the outline consent for a residential led mixed-use development on the Golflinks Estate. The outline consent, reference 195348OUT, was granted on 30 April 2020.

It was explained that the first application for a non-material amendment sought to non-materially amend the consented maximum built envelope and protrusion lines on the northern and western edges to allow for entrance canopies as well as an oriel bay to mark the corner of the development.

It was further explained that the reserved matters application sought approval for the Means of Access, Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale in relation to the construction of three buildings up to 3 storeys in height comprising 143 new homes and 140 sqm of flexible non residential floorspace. The proposal included a mix of 1-, 2-, 3- and 4- bedroom apartments and a mix of tenures, including affordable rent and shared ownership. The scheme provided 100% affordable housing. The scheme also provides 26% family sized homes, in accordance with the identified need within Ealing.

The committee was informed that the applications were dependent on one another insofar as it had to either grant both applications or refuse both applications.

Planning officers informed the committee that they considered that the non-material amendment application raised no strategic planning issues. Furthermore, officers considered the Reserved Matters proposal to provide a high-quality residential development that would positively contribute to the wider aspirations for Golflinks estate and would continue the Council’s Estate Regeneration Programme. It was therefore recommended by officers that the committee agreed the non-material amendments of application 221396NMA subject to the amendments to the original conditions of consent and that it gratned reserved matters approval 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. It had provided information on amendments to the recommendation set out in the committee report, including information on the agreed financial contributions for the scheme.

There were no speakers on this application. Following questions from the committee, officers made the following clarification:

·       The proposal included a compliant amount of wheelchair accessible units.

The committee proceeded to vote on the applications.

RESOLVED:

1.     That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for the application REF 221396NMA be GRANTED amendments subject to the amendments to the original conditions of consent.

2.     That for the reasons set out in the committee report, reserved matters approval for the application REF 221501REM be GRANTED subject to successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent.

The next meeting will be held on Wednesday 17 August 2022.

The date of the next scheduled Planning Committee meeting was Wednesday 17 August 2022.