Agenda item

Wade Banks, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for the partial demolition, refurbishment and development of the site to provide an office-led mixed-use scheme comprising buildings between 2 and 21 stories at 9-42 The Broadway and 1-4 Haven Place in Ealing town centre. The scheme included flexible uses for retail, restaurants and cafes as well as a new pedestrian route connecting the Broadway with Ealing Broadway Station.

The site is located in central Ealing, bounded by trainlines to the north and Haven Place beyond, Ealing Broadway shopping centre to the south and The Broadway to the east and south. There is a pedestrian walkway running along western and northern edges of the site called Haven Place. The site is covered by several designations, including as the Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area and Ealing Metropolitan Town Centre.

The scheme proposed a 21-storey tower as part of its “Broadway Connection Building”. The height of this building was one of the main concerns raised during consultation. Whilst officers acknowledged that there was going to be a level of harm caused to local heritage assets and the local environment by the buildings, officers considered that the harm was going to be less than substantial. In relation to the impact of the tall building and to the development more widely, Mr Banks noted the public regeneration benefits which the proposal was going to bring and informed the Committee that it was the opinion of officers that these benefits outbalanced the harm to the heritage assets. Amongst the public benefits outlined, Mr Banks noted the economic benefits of the new provision of office space, the intensification of the brownfield site and the creation of a new public space and route through the site.

Overall, it was officers’ opinion that the concerns raised about the proposal during the consultation and the harms identified to heritage assets were outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. The application was recommended for granting, subject to conditions, satisfactory completion of a Section 106 legal agreement and a Stage 2 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 additional conditions and additional representations.

The Chair exercised his discretion and informed the Committee that an extension to usual speaking time of 3 minutes each for objectors and applicants had been extended to 5 minutes due to other applications in the area having also had extensions to speaking time at Committee. The Chair confirmed that the 2 objectors were required to split the 5 minutes speaking time.

Geoffrey Payne, an objector to the development, made his representation to the Committee for 3 of the 5 minutes allocated to objectors. His representation included the followed key points:

• Whilst the council might benefit from revenues through the business rates of such office led developments, such revenue was going to come at the price of the Council’s environmental goals and the character of Ealing Town Centre.
• Mr Payne outlined his environmental concerns in relation to the proposal. Electricity use in office buildings over 20 stories tall was 20% greater and the embodied carbon in taller buildings was worse.
• Mr Payne also objected to the proposals on aesthetic and heritage grounds. Historic England and the GLA had both objected to the proposal on these grounds, and he agreed with these bodies that the proposal was out of character with the local area. Mr Payne considered that the harm could only be significantly reduced if the height of the tall building was lowered.

Will French, an objector to the development, made his representation to the Committee for the remaining 2 of the 5 minutes allocated to objectors. His representation included the followed key points:

• Mr French supported a commercially led development on this site but did not consider that this proposal was adequate to be agreed.
• Mr French outlined some historical applications which related to building tall buildings in the area in and around this site, including a 2008 application which was overturned by a planning inspector and a 2017 application which was withdrawn before it came to an enquiry. Mr French considered that the impact of the tower proposed in this application was going to as great or greater than the two previous applications.

James Owens, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. His representation made the following key points:

• The application sought to reverse the decline of Ealing’s office space and aimed to underpin the health of the town centre for the future.
• There were economic benefits to the scheme beyond increasing business rates for the Council, including the creations of new jobs both permanently and through construction and the provision of new office spaces which was likely to bring new workers to the Town Centre.
• The applicant was pleased with the design of the scheme, which had been drawn up by an award-winning architect. Offices were angled to give a slimmer profile to Haven Green and the new buildings were set back to give prominence to St Saviours Church. 
• There were public benefits to the scheme, including creating space for the Ealing club on the site and creating a public courtyard and pedestrian route through the site between The Broadway to the station.
• The tallest building was designed to be one of the most sustainable buildings in Ealing.

Councillor Julian Gallant, a local ward councillor, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points:

• Councillor Gallant identified strengths of the application, including the introduction of a new commercial area, a new music venue, and the impact that new office workers would have on the local economy. However, Councillor Gallant considered that there continued to be significant concerns arising from the proposal.
• Although mitigations had been proposed, Councillor Gallant considered that the proposals were likely to add to the issues with crime in Ealing centre. The inset areas in Ealing Broadway already attracted criminal activity and this was disruptive to local residents. The proposals were likely to worsen these problems.
• Another concern was the massing and height of the buildings on the development. The tallest building was too dominant as a result of its height, and this threatened the view of Christ the Saviour Church.
• Councillor Gallant referred to Historic England’s consultation response in relation to the development and asked the Committee to consider this carefully when coming to its decision. 

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

• Several concerns were raised by representatives of the Metropolitan Police. Some of these concerns were addressed by the applicant, although there continued to be concerns about the level of natural surveillance from the blocks at night given that they were commercial and not residential.
• Additional measures had been added to the proposal to mitigate the concerns about the potential for crime and anti-social behaviour on the site, including the reduction of recesses in the buildings on the site and changes to the bike storage areas. There was going to be 24 hours security on the site.
• Whilst it was the case that taller buildings had greater levels of embodied carbon, overall, the scheme was compliant with the aims and objectives of the relevant energy and sustainability policies. Officers considered that this was one of the more energy efficient schemes in the borough.
• The existing public rights of way were not going to be reprovisioned, which meant that the landowners would have control over when the footways were open.
• Many of the small shops on the Broadway were on short leases and it would be up to them whether they wished to apply for new leases in the development.
• The viability of the office space was not a planning consideration.
• There were some impacts in terms of day light and sun light on local buildings, although officers considered that these impacts were not sufficient to outweigh granting the application.
• The design out crime officer and a representative of the police neighbourhoods team had been consulted on the revised scheme. They continued to raise concerns about natural surveillance.

The Committee noted a typographical error in the officers’ report. On page 26 of the agenda reports pack, in the relation to the table row outlining link improvements, the text was corrected to “The applicant is requested to contribute only £200,000 towards these measures. Transport will seek £750,000 from other funding sources”.

An amendment to the application was proposed to include a condition which allowed safety arrangements on the site to be reviewed after the development was completed. The Committee proceeded to vote on application, with the amendment of the condition relating to safety arrangements.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for application REF 223774FUL be GRANTED subject to:

1.     Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent with a condition included to allow safety arrangements on the site to be reviewed after the development was completed;

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

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