Agenda and minutes

To note any apologies for absence and substitutions.

Apologies were received from Councillors Gordon, Kohli, Sahota, and Khan.

Councillor Iqbal substituted for Councillor Gordon, Councillor L Wall for Councillor Kohli and Councillor Raza for Councillor Sahota.

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 19 October 2023.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting on 19 October 2023 were agreed as a correct record.

To share site visit details and note site visit attendance.

The following councillors attended site visits for the applications on the agenda prior to the meeting:

Councillors R Wall, Martin, Mahmood, Kelly, Iqbal, Padda and Conti.

Joel Holland, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for the redevelopment of the site, including the demolition of the existing building and the construction of two buildings in their place ranging from 6 to 14 storeys. These buildings were proposed to provide 185 self-contained residential units. The development site was located in West Ealing, with the site having frontages onto Northfield Avenue, Tawny Close and Sherwood Close. Northfield Allotments were to the east of the development.

Mr Holland outlined some of the history to the development, noting that the proposals related to Phase 3 (the final phase) of the Sherwood Close (Dean Gardens) estate redevelopment. Phase 3 had been covered by a planning permission consent given in October 2015. The updated proposals involved an increase in the number of units to be created as part of phase 3, an increase in the height of the development, and a change in the massing of the buildings.

The increase in the number of proposed units was accompanied by proposals for affordable housing to be brought forward in this phase, which had not originally been planned. The 10 3-bedroom units were all going to be affordable housing, which was particularly desirable as this would supply housing for low-income families. Despite the increase in height, Mr Holland explained that officers considered that the proposals were an improvement on the design of the original scheme, particularly in that the new proposals included staggered building heights and opportunities for new cross development links and public realm improvements.

Overall, officers considered that the development constituted one which maximised the opportunity for housing on the site and which was well-connected to public infrastructure. It was considered to be a significant improvement to the consented scheme, and was accordingly recommended for approval, subject to conditions and 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 an amendment to the officers’ recommendation and additional clarifications to the report.

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

·       The proposed buildings were too tall in the context of the local area, with buildings near to the estate tending to range between 5 – 7 stories. The heights of the proposed buildings were taller than those recommended for West Ealing in Ealing’s tall buildings strategy 2022.

·       The proposals were likely to change the scale and character of the local area, with particular risk to the character of the community allotments next door to the site.

·       Whilst residents were supportive of redevelopment for the local area, it appeared to them that the planning process had been rushed with little time for engagement and consultation with local residents ahead of the decision.

Pascal French, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. The representation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Joel Holland, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for the demolition of existing buildings on the application site and the construction of a part 5, part 17 storey building comprising build to rent resident units, community space, and the reprovision of an existing public house on the site. The site was located in Southall West, close to the canal, with prominent frontages onto both Bankside and The Broadway. Officers considered it had the potential to become a gateway building to Southall, given its prominent position on the border with the London Borough of Hillingdon, and its location in an area which played a historically important role in the development of Southall.

Mr Holland described the residential units which would be created as part of this development. They were going to be build to rent units, which were considered to be strategically important in both the London Plan and the Draft Local Plan. Although the site was not allocated for development in the existing Local Plan, it was part of a potential allocation within the Draft Local Plan. It was also noted that there was an existing consent for a hotel scheme of up to 15 storeys on the site, although officers were satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that a hotel scheme was no longer viable on the site, allowing the principle of this residential led development to remain acceptable.

Mr Holland provided an overview of officers’ assessment of the design, scale and height of the proposed development. Officers believed that the scheme did not depart significantly in terms of scale and height from the existing consent for a 15-storey building on the site. Mr Holland also noted some of the key strengths of the design, including an interesting façade design which used ceramic panelling glazed with terracotta. The use of these materials were a reference to the heritage of Southall.

Overall, it was the view of officers that the scheme was well considered. Officers found no reasons that would warrant refusal of the application. Mr Holland therefore recommended that the committee grant the application, subject to conditions, a Section 106 legal agreement, and a 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 notes and clarifications to the committee report.

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:

·       There was a supportive policy context to the reprovision of the public house on the site. The London Plan sought to support the operation of public houses through planning policy, with public houses understood to be spaces for community gatherings.

·       In order for the applicant to change the use of the ground floor from a public house to another use, for instance a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

John Robertson, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for the demolition of existing buildings and the construction of a part 23, part 19 and part 14 storey building on a derelict commercial site just south of Southall town centre. The proposals were for a residential-led redevelopment comprising 95 residential units, with flexible community/amenity space on the ground floor available for residents and the local community. There was also going to be communal outdoor amenity space in terraces at the first and fourteenth floor levels.

Mr Robertson noted that an application had been approved by the planning committee in July 2022, although this had required revision due to changes in fire safety regulations. The proposals had been amended to provide a second staircase in the building, which had led to changes in the shape of the building and an enlargement of its core area.

Some key aspects of the proposals remained unchanged from the consented application. The proposed tenure split remained unchanged, with 70% intermediate and 30% London Affordable Rent. This was not the preferred tenure split of the Council, although officers were satisfied on the basis of the evidence submitted by the applicant that this was the best tenure split which was financially viable for the applicant. Mr Robertson also noted that the proposed height of the building was unchanged from the existing consent. Whilst the site was not within a site identified as appropriate for tall buildings, it did lie in the Southall Gateway character area and was close to other sites in the area which had gained consent for similarly tall buildings.

Mr Robertson noted the public realm improvements secured through the scheme. These included widening pavements, tree planting, new benches, and integrated street lighting between public realm area and the raised highway. Whilst the urban greening factor was below what the Council would usually expect, Mr Robertson noted that this was likely due to small size of the site. There were also going to financial contributions as a result of the scheme through a Section 106 Legal Agreement and a Community Infrastructure Levy, with contributions overall in the region of £1.2 million.

Overall, it was the view of officers that the scheme was likely to provide a number of planning and regeneration benefits. On balance, it was considered that the proposed development accorded with relevant planning policy. Mr Robertson therefore recommended that the committee grant the application, subject to conditions, Section 106 and Section 278 legal agreements, 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 amendments to the recommendation in the committee report and details further comments which had been received. Mr Robertson explained that the London Fire Brigade had raised concerns about lobbies to the fire evacuation lifts and the 14^th floor amenity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The next meeting will be held on 13 December 2023.

The next meeting was scheduled for 13 December 2023.