Agenda and minutes

To note any apologies for absence and substitutions.

Apologies were received from Councillor Summers with Councillor Rice as 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.

There were none.

To determine whether items contain information that is exempt from disclosure by virtue of Part1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972.

There were none.

To approve as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 1 March 2023.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 1 March 2023 were agreed as a true and correct record.

To share site visit details and note site visit attendance.

The following Committee members attended site visits prior to the Committee meeting:

Councillors Brett, Mahmood, Martin, Padda, Wall, Hamidi, Kelly, Khan and Shaw.

Chris Maltby, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for the redevelopment of a small, 0.82ha, area of land between Park view and Cloister Road on the south west intersection of Horn Lane with Western Avenue. The proposal was for the erection of 6 residential buildings ranging in height from 2 to 17 stories to provide a total of 300 new homes, of which 35% were going to be affordable by habitable room. The site had a high PTAL rating and the proposals were likely to have only negligible impacts on surrounding areas.

Mr Maltby outlined the context of the application. The site had originally been acquired to facilitate the widening of the A40, a project which was later abandoned. There had been two recent Planning permissions granted on this site. The first permission was granted in 2015 for the site’s redevelopment with residential blocks between 3 and 6 stories and a 6-storey hotel. The second permission was granted in 2018 and sought residential led development with blocks ranging from 3 to 9 stories. Both permissions expired after not being implemented.

Mr Maltby outlined some of the key determining issues in relation to the application, which included the principle of the development, design, housing standards, energy and sustainability, neighbourhood impacts, environmental protection, affordable housing, transport, the Acton Green corridor, responses to consultation, and Planning obligations. Overall, Mr Maltby considered that the proposal was going to result in the effective use of this brownfield site and was going to bring forward a wide range of high-quality residential dwellings, including a good proportion of affordable ones. On balance of the relevant considerations, Mr Maltby recommended that the Committee grant planning permission subject to conditions, the completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and a stage 2 referral to the Greater London Authority.

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 corrections and clarifications to the report, further written representations made in relation to the application and amendments to the proposed conditions.

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

·       Although Ms King agreed with there was a need for building new homes in London, Ms King considered that the proposal was not appropriate for this area of land.

·       Ms King disagreed with officers that this proposal was compliant with local and regional policy on tall buildings. In particular, Ms King referenced the London Plan policy D9 and Ealing Council’s policy to restrict tall buildings to only specific sites.

·       Ms King noted that the applicant referred to the tall buildings in North Acton as a justification for the heights of the proposed blocks. Ms King considered that this justification was weak insofar the setting of buildings in North Acton was across the A40 and was very different from the setting in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Gregory Gray, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for the demolition of existing buildings on the site of Brook House, 100 Gunnersbury Lane, and the site’s redevelopment with a building of up to 15 storeys to provide up to 102 dwellings.

The proposal was the result of an application by the current owner of the site, Women’s Pioneer Housing, to increase their capacity as a social housing provider and to redevelop the buildings on the site. The proposal was to replace the existing 39 flats with up to 102, 100% social rent affordable flats. The proposed flats were going to be for existing tenants wishing to return as well as for new ones. Mr Gray noted the location of the site in Acton, close to Acton Town Station and frequent bus services.

The application had been brought by Women’s Pioneer Housing, a social housing provider, which provided housing across London for single women, particularly those who faced inequality, abuse and disadvantages. Women’s Pioneer Housing had continuously owned and provided homes for tenants at Brook House since 1935.

Mr Gray recommended that the Committee grant planning permission for the application, subject to conditions, prior completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement 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 corrections to the reports and further written representations received, one of which was from the London Fire Bridge.

Dr Ray Batchelor, an objector to the development, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points:

·       Dr Batchelor disagreed with the balance of considerations which planning officers had put forward. He considered that the social benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the environmental damage it would cause.

·       Dr Batchelor outlined four respects in which he disagreed with the balance outlined by officers: (1) that a tall building was not the only viable way to address the genuine social issues, (2) the degree of environmental impact had been underestimated, (3) too little weight had been attached to the views of local residents, and (4) the proposed building was going to set a precedent for future applications.

·       Whilst not against tall buildings in principle, Dr Batchelor considered that this proposal in this specific location was going to irreversibly damage the surrounding environment.

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

·       Women’s Pioneer Housing had a long history dating back to the Suffragette movement of providing safe and affordable housing for single women. There continued to be a strong social need for affordable housing for single women with 600 single women currently on the Council’s housing waiting list.

·       It was no longer practical for the organisation to continue providing its accommodation in the existing buildings on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, 26 April 2023.

The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, 26 April 2023.