Agenda item

Joel Holland, Planning Officer, introduced the report and explained that the application before the Committee was for the construction of a building ranging between 6 to 15 storeys, providing a builders’ merchants at the ground floor level and 185 self-contained residential units. The development site was located in Acton, fronting onto Horn Lane with the main line railway to the rear. The site currently included a builders’ merchants and 5 commercial units. The builders’ merchants was going to be reprovisioned and there was going to be a small uplift in space allocated for commercial uses.

The site was a designated development site under the current local plan and continued to be designated as such in the emerging Draft Local Plan.  Mr Holland explained that the proposal was for a tall building by London Plan standards and that, although the site was not designated for the construction of a tall building in the existing local plan, it was listed as an area which was potentially appropriate for a tall building in the Draft Local Plan. It was the opinion of officers that a tall building on the site was going to be in keeping with the emerging context of the area, particularly with the developments in the nearby Friary Park site.

Of the new homes to be provided, the development was going to include 35% affordable housing by habitable room and was going to have a 60/40 split in favour of London Affordable Rent over intermediate housing products. Although the proposal was going to see an increase in residential uses on the site, officers did not consider that the proposal was going to have a negative impact on railway and industrial uses existing on the site and in the area. On account of London Plan requirements, it was the responsibility of the developer to mitigate against impacts of existing noise on the site. The applicant had submitted a revised Noise Assessment for the development during the application process as part of mitigation against this concern.

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 originally set out in the Committee report, additional representations, and the withdrawal of an objection from Firstplan.

Mr Holland informed the Committee that, overall, it was the opinion of officers that the proposal would fully optimise the opportunity of the site, delivering additional housing and providing a more modern space for the Builders Merchant to occupy. The proposal was recommended for approval, subject to conditions, a Section 106 legal agreement and a stage II referral to the Greater London Authority.

Ms Emma Boyling, an objector to the development who attended virtual via a video link, made a representation to the Committee which included the following key points:

• Local services and infrastructure were already overloaded and would be further stretched by a residential development of this scale on the site.
• The building was not an appropriate height for the local area.
• The development risked worsening existing issues relating to highway safety and public transport. The contributions to pedestrian crossings and local transport infrastructure were not sufficient for mitigating the concerns.

Mr Tim Holtham, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in favour of the application. The representation made the following key points:

• The proposal was in-keeping with Ealing’s development aims, particularly its Draft Local Plan.
• The proposal was going to provide new affordable housing in an area which was well served in terms of transport links.
• The development was going to maintain the building merchant on the site, which was important given the importance of industry in the local area.

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

• Access to the site was going to be gated to ensure the security of the site and to prevent parking. 
• The permission for the development was going to expire after 5 years from the date of the decision.
• Figure 25, page 45 of the officer’s report, showed how traffic was going to be managed around the site.
• Officers considered that it was acceptable to have a builders’ merchants underneath the development, noting that once the development was finished, merchant traffic was no longer going to be visible from the surrounding areas.
• Whilst the development would see a reduction in daylight and sunlight in some neighbouring windows, it was considered that their retained levels were acceptable.
• The developer was required to submit a ventilation strategy as part of the proposal. It was confirmed that all flats were going to have mechanical ventilation.

The Committee proceeded to vote on the application.

RESOLVED:

That for the reasons set out in the committee report, planning permission for application REF 225069FUL be GRANTED subject to:

1.     Successful resolution of Planning Conditions of Consent;

2.     Satisfactory completion of Section 106 and 278 Legal Agreements; and

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