Agenda item

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 the site through a process of refurbishment. The existing buildings were small, difficult to heat and with outdated amenities.

·       Ms Downie noted that there were physical constraints on the site which made it necessary to propose a taller building with a smaller footprint. The proposal made it viable for the applicant to provide 100% affordable housing on the site.

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

·       It was the opinion of officers that this proposal, if granted, was unlikely to set a precedent for the creation of similar buildings in the area. The committee was referred to page 152 of the agenda pack where it gave more information on this topic.

·       The proposals offered both 100% affordable housing by unit and by habitable room.

·       There were no direct protections which would prevent the site being sold on to another developer in the future. However, there were practical considerations which made this unlikely, such as the long history of the applicant on this site and that certain grants from the Greater London Authority may have to be paid back if the use changed.

·       The nearby replacement rail workers accommodation block was going to reach a height of 4 stories, with the closest proposed block of the Brook House development to be the shorter of the two, at 11 stories.

·       Following the demolition of the existing Brook House buildings, vehicular access to the site was going to move to the North of the site. All storage was going to placed in the area which was the existing car park of the site.

·       The shortfall in the amenity space on the site was going to justified by a financial contribution to improvements to Heathfield Gardens and Gerome allotments.

The Committee proceeded to vote on the application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for application REF 224773FUL be GRANTED subject to:

1.     Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent;

2.     Satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Legal Agreement; and

3.     A Stage II referral to the Mayor of London.