Agenda and minutes

To note any apologies for absence and substitutions.

There were none.

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 meetings held on:

1.     Wednesday, 7 June 2023; and

2.     Wednesday, 19 July 2023.

The committee was asked to consider two sets of minutes, the first from the meeting on 7 June 2023 and the second from 19 July 2023.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meetings on 7 June 2023 and 19 July 2023 were agreed as a true and correct record.

To share site visit details and note site visit attendance.

The following councillors attended site visits on the weekend prior to the committee meeting:

Councillors R Wall, D Martin, Sahota, Mahmood, Raza, Gordon, Iqbal, Padda L Wall, Rice and Busuttil.

Councillors Young and Summers sent their apologies for the site visits.

Joel Holland Turner, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for the construction of a mixed-use development of two buildings, comprising 20 and 11 storeys respectively.

The development was going to be situated on two separate, unattached plots within an industrial block in South Acton. The first site had frontages to Bollo Lane, Colville Road and Sitrling Road. The second site had frontages onto Stirling Road and Bollo Lane. Both sites were designated as part of a Locally Significant Industrial Site (LSIS), had an Archaeological Interest Area designation and were located within a Local Park Deficiency area. Officers considered the proposals were for well-designed buildings which would uplift the local area.

Mr Holland explained the plans for the two blocks. The proposed 20 storey block was known as block AB and was going to include industrial floor space at ground and first floor, with purpose-built student accommodation on the floors above. Block JK was the 11-storey block, and it was at the ground and first floor levels of this block that the existing industrials uses on the site were going to be reprovisioned. 95 homes were going to be provided above the industrial floors, of which 38% by habitable room were going to be affordable.

Mr Holland noted that it was a material consideration that a scheme on this site had previously been agreed by committee in November 2021. In the view of officers, the proposals for the height fell within the parameters set by the consented scheme. One of the key differences between the consented scheme and the proposed scheme was the provision of student accommodation in block AB. It was noted that a purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA) needs assessment had been undertaken and had found that there was a relative lack of PBSA stock to meet the current and future need of Ealing’s student population. In light of the findings of the needs assessment, officers considered the provision of student accommodation on the site could, in principle, be supported.

Overall, Mr Holland explained that officers found the scheme to be well-considered, with the benefits of delivering new homes and industrial space. It was well designed and was likely to uplift what had been an unwelcoming environment. Mr Holland recommended that the committee grant consent for the application, subject to conditions, the completion of a section 106 legal agreement and stage II 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 on an amendment to the recommendation which added to the proposed Heads of Terms for the development.

Mr Neil Sheppard, an objector to the development, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points:

·       The buildings were too tall and risked compounding the issues South Acton was facing as its population density increased. The height appeared to be in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Chris Maltby, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for a hybrid application for the phased redevelopment of the Former Honey Monster Foods site, on Bridge Road, Southall. The development was part of a wider industrial estate in Norwood Green ward and was designated as a locally significant industrial site. It was bordered to North by a railway branch line, to the east by Glade Lane Canalside Park, to the south by a spur of the Grand Union Canal and to the west the Middlesex Business Centre.

The redevelopment, which was going to comprise 3 phases, was for the creation of a new employment campus comprising office and industrial uses and was going to cover a maximum of 39,628 square meters of floorspace. Mr Maltby explained that the applicant had submitted full details of phases 1 and 2 of the development, with outline permission sought for phase 3.

The proposals were considered to bring significant regeneration benefits, including the provision of a new east-west cycle path through the site, a new bus route connecting the site and neighbouring Middlesex Business Centre to south Southall, the provision of a new retail kiosk at the centre of the site, and the provision of affordable workspace on site. The proposals would also bring a brown field employment site back into use after having laid vacant since 2016.

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 clarifications to the report, additional consultation responses provided since the committee report was published, and amendments and additions to the conditions recommended.

Mr Maltby also updated the committee that since the briefing note was published, he had received confirmation from National Highways that they had no objections to the proposals.

Overall, given the public and regeneration benefits of the scheme, and its compliance with national and local planning regulations and policy, Mr Maltby recommended that the application was granted, subject to conditions, satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement, and a referral to the Mayor of London.

There were no speakers on this item.

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

·       Affordable workspace was going to be provisioned by way of condition for a period of no less than 15 years from the date of occupation.

·       68 parking spaces were distributed throughout the site, with 2 nearby to affordable workspace. The affordable workspace was also adjacent to the proposed bus stop. 

·       The works to Bridge Road were to be completed by the time the development was occupied.

·       The development was to be fully managed by the applicant, with it being their responsibility for maintaining the trees on the site. A condition secured the creation of site management plan, which would give details of how the site would be managed.

·       The shuttle  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

The next meeting will be held on 1 November 2023.

The date of the next meeting was scheduled for 1 November 2023.