Agenda and draft 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 meeting held on 1 November 2023.

RESOLVED:

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

To share site visit details and note site visit attendance.

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

D Martin, T Mahmood, A Kelly, L Wall, C Summers, J Ball, S Kumar and R Wall.

Patrick Franklin, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for the demolition of the existing building on the East Acton Arcade site, 93 Old Oak Common Lane, and the construction of a multi-storey hotel with shared café/restaurant space on the ground floor level with workspace and flexible space at basement level for either further hotel units or a snooker hall. The site was located on the western side of Old Oak Common Lane, East Acton.

Mr Franklin elaborated on officers’ consideration of the application, including the principle of the development, responses to the consultation, design and appearance, the impact on the street scene and townscape and any residential amenity impacts.

Mr Franklin drew attention to the potential for the reprovision of the snooker hall on the site. The applicant proposed to secure a snooker operator at the basement level of the building. If a snooker operator were not to come forward to secure an agreement for a lease, the flexible use floorspace was going to revert to the initially proposed hotel use.

Mr Franklin noted that the application had been brought before the committee in August 2022, although it was deferred by the committee for further clarification on the snooker and pool needs assessment, traffic management around the site and the usage to the rear of the site, and the natural light impact of the proposal to the rear of the site. The committee was referred to the committee report for updates on these areas.

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, including to the proposed heads of terms and additional representations received.

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

·       The existing snooker hall supported a large and diverse community of players, ranging in age and ability. It was unique in West London and was a key part of the local community.

·       The reduction of playing space in the new proposals was justified by a needs assessment which was not representative of the actual usage of the snooker hall. The needs assessment was undertaken out of season and during the pandemic.

·       The snooker club considered it was likely that the current proposals would not lead to the reprovision of a snooker hall on the site. The existing operator risked being priced-out by new rent levels, with the consequence that the basement level was likely to revert to hotel uses.

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

·       There was a genuine offer for the existing snooker operator to have first right of refusal for occupying the basement level of the new development. The applicant was also committed to continuing its dialogue with the existing businesses on the site to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

Xanna Machecourt, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for the demolition of existing buildings at 16 Eastman Road and the erection of a single storey industrial and/or logistics unit, with office space and associated parking and landscaping. The site was located in Southfield in the Eastman Road cul-de-sac off The Vale. It was on the southern edge of the Acton Park Industrial Area and was part of the designated Locally Significant Industrial Site.

The principle of the development was considered good, with the proposals aligning closely with Local and London Plan policies as well bringing forward industrial uses in a designated industrial area. The application included strong proposals for energy, sustainability and biodiversity, as well for transport. Further details were provided about the statutory consultation on the scheme. The consultation had attracted objections relating to the height, townscape and visual amenity, inadequate public consultation, residential amenity, design, air quality and ecology. Officers did not find that any objections provided sufficient grounds to refuse the application.

Ms Machecourt referred to the conditions which had been recommended to ensure that the proposed development did not lead to excessive impact adjacent residential housing, particularly relating to the noise and acoustics from the industrial uses. Much of the industrial activity was planned to take place within the proposed building and there were restrictions proposed for where service vehicles were allowed to operate outside on the site. The plans also included an acoustic fence around the perimeter of the site to further mitigate noise concerns. Overall, officers considered that the scheme did not present unacceptable impacts to neighbouring properties in terms overbearing, noise, sense of enclosure or loss of light.

Overall, Ms Machecourt informed the committee that it was the opinion of officers that the site formed a sustainable form of development which would support economic activity and employment opportunities for local residents. Officers recommended the application for approval, subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement and 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 corrections to the report and an amendment to the staff car parking provision,

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

·       Local residents were not satisfied with the proposed mitigations to the noise impacts of the industrial site, particularly given the proposals were for use 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. The assessments of the current level of noise were misleading because they were done without regard to the historic noise issues.

·       The proposals undermined the quality and viability of Southfield Park as a place for relaxation and socialising.

·       The building was large, taller than the previous buildings and at parts closer to the neighbouring roads and properties. As an industrial building, it was not going to fit in with  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Marile Van Eeden, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for construction of a three storey building for education use on the Villiers High School site, The 2 hectare site was located within Southall in a largely residential area, with its main entrance to Boyd Avenue. The site was not in a conservation area, although it was in the Southall Opportunity Area.

Ms Van Eeden explained that the proposed development was planned for the southeast of the site and the building was going to have with an L-shape footprint. The development was going to allow an increase of 122 in pupil capacity at the school, providing a mix of general and specialist teaching classrooms and staff offices. Although no comments were received from members of the public during the statutory consultation, Sport England & Sports Leisure commented that the proposals were going to result in a loss of playing field land. Officers considered that the loss was going to be mitigated through the planned upgrading of 2 courts to the east of the school.

Ms Van Eeden continued to provide further detail on sport fields, trees, the impact of the proposals on neighbouring amenity, highways and transport, energy and sustainability, air quality, and flood risk and drainage.

Overall, Ms Van Eeden informed the committee that it was the opinion of officers that the proposal was acceptable and would be consistent with relevant planning policy and strategies. Ms Van Eeden recommended the application for approval, subject to conditions and planning obligations. 

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 report and an amendment to the recommended condition 17, relating to a Community Use Agreement.

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

·       There were going to be two dedicated tennis courts which were going to be unaffected by the development.

·       There was ongoing discussion between the school and the Council’s parks team to determine which uses were going to be available on the MUGA and when. This was going to be managed by the parks team in the long term.

·       The Council’s energy officer was supportive of the application. The precise details of how the energy from the solar panels was going to be distributed was not yet confirmed.

·       The trees which were planned to be removed were not subject to a Tree Protection Order. The tree protection plan referenced in the report related to the protection of the remaining trees during the construction period.

The Committee proceeded to vote on the application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for application REF 225225FUL be GRANTED subject to:

1.     Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent;

2.     Satisfactory completion of Planning Obligations, including the internal transfer of finances  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

The Chair introduced the report, which provided an update on the performance of Ealing Council’s planning services. The Chair noted the strong performance indicated in the report and invited the committee to note it and to commend the work of officers in the service.  The committee was also invited to feedback any areas which they would like to receive more information on in future.

Alex Jackson, Head of Development Management, explained that a performance report could become more regular and align with the Council’s reporting year.

The committee discussed the report. The committee provided feedback that it could be preferable for the report to be brought to a meeting where there were few other applications to determine, if any.

RESOLVED:

That the planning committee noted the report and commended officers in planning services for their performance.

The Chair introduced the report, which sought approval for updates to the planning committee’s two speaking protocols, the public speaking protocol and the councillors speaking protocol.

The committee was invited to ask questions and provide comments on the protocol. The committee raised the following points:

·       Speakers at the planning committee could benefit from some guidance in the protocol about what was relevant for the planning committee to consider and what was not.

·       More widely, there was occasionally some misunderstanding amongst members of the public about the role of the planning committee and whether it could be a forum for open discussion.

Officers responded that there were opportunities for further guidance about planning considerations and the role of the committee to be shared with members of the public, for instance through the introduction sheets at the start of each agenda, the Council website, or through the letters inviting residents to speak. There was a risk that adding too many restrictions to the protocol documents could make them difficult to follow.

The committee asked for clarification about whether councillors were able to request to speak on an application purely in their capacity as a resident. It was confirmed that the councillors speaking protocol only required a councillor to appoint a representative or to defer their speaking time to another individual in cases where they had a pecuniary interest in an application.

RESOLVED:

That the planning committee agreed to adopt the amended public and councillor speaking protocols as set out in appendices 1 and 2 of the committee report.

The next meeting will be held on 24 January 2023.

The date of the next meeting was 24 January 2024.