Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee. Council Chamber, Town Hall, New Broadway, Ealing, W5 2BY

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee. Council Chamber, Town Hall, New Broadway, Ealing, W5 2BY"

Meghan Holmes
5 years ago
Views:

1 Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee Date: Wednesday, 19 July 2017 Time: 19:00 Venue: Council Chamber, Town Hall, New Broadway, Ealing, W5 2BY Attendees: Councillor Munir Ahmed, Councillor Natasha Ahmed-Shaikh, Councillor Gary Busuttil, Councillor Steve Hynes, Councillor Tariq Mahmood, Councillor Shital Manro, Councillor Dee Martin, Councillor Ian Proud, Councillor Aysha Raza, Councillor Chris Summers, Councillor Nigel Sumner, Councillor Lauren Wall, Councillor Ray Wall Apologies for Absence: Absent: [officer and guest attendees] MEMBERSHIP: 1 Apologies for Absence There were none. 2 Urgent Matters There were none. 3 Declarations of Interest In relation to application 02 - Land adjoining No. 115 Gunnersbury Lane Acton W3 8HQ, Councillor Busuttil stated that some of the objectors to the proposal were known to him, but he had not expressed a view on the application. In relation to application 03 The White Hart, 49 High Street, Southall, UB1 3HF, Councillor Manro declared he was a school governor in Southall, but this did not preclude him from taking part in the consideration of the application.

2 4 Matters to be Considered in Private There were none. 5 Minutes RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 21st June 2017, be agreed as a correct record of the meeting. Site Visits List - 15th July 2017 The Chair reported that he along with Councillors Ahmed, Busuttil, Mahmood, Manro, Martin, Proud, and Raza had attended the site visits held on 15 July 2017 to The White Hart, 49 High Street, Southall, UB1 3HF and Land adjoining No.115 Gunnersbury Lane, Acton, W3 8HQ. Councillors L. Wall and R. Wall, Ahmed-Shaikh, Summers and Sumner had sent their apologies for absence. ITEM 02 - Land Adjoining No. 115 Gunnersbury Lane, Acton W3 8HQ - MAP Proposal: Construction of a 6-storey building to provide 31 room house in multiple occupation, including reconfiguration of forecourt fronting existing development at no. 115 Gunnersbury Lane to provide a shared communal area, 14 additional covered cycle parking spaces, extended refuse/recycling storage area and hard/soft landscape improvements. Alex Jackson, Development Planning Manager, introduced the application and referred members to the additional information provided in the briefing note. The briefing note detailed additional conditions in relation to a Transport Management Plan, Phase 1 car parking and a further written representation submitted on behalf of Mr Sheikh, the owner of Acton Town Hotel, in objection to the proposed development. The Development Planning Manager reported that the application had been withdrawn from the agenda for the meeting held on 21 June 2017, following the receipt of a further objection, which included an independent sunlight and daylight study. Members were advised that the additional objection and accompanying information had now been fully reviewed; and the review had concluded there was no conflict with the applicant s revised Sunlight and Daylight submission. The Committee was advised that the proposal was of an appropriate scale and design for the site and would not result in an unacceptable level of harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents. The development would not give rise to increased car parking pressure in the area and appropriate

3 conditions were recommended in relation to landscaping and noise. The Development Planning Manager reported that the proposal was consistent with the aims of the relevant policies of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan 2013, Ealing Core Strategy (2012), The London Plan (2016, Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance, the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and emerging planning policy documents. Members were therefore recommended to approve planning permission with conditions, subject to a legal agreement. Alex Ground, spoke on behalf of the owner of Acton Town Hotel, in objection to the application. Concerns were raised in relation to highway impact, overdevelopment and the loss of daylight / sunlight. She said the proposed development would exacerbate the unsafe use of the existing alleyway and construction vehicles would have difficulties entering the alleyway in forward gear and reversing onto the highway. She stated that the Traffic Management Plan and Construction Management Plan should be agreed by Planning Officers, prior to the Committee determining the application. John Fleet, a local resident, spoke in objection to the application. He said the proposal would be located in a Conservation Area and therefore should be designed in-line with relevant planning policies to ensure it did not exert a detriment impact on the area. He said the current design was rudimentary, grey and box like, and was incompatible with the existing historic properties in the area. With regard to mass, scale and proportion he said the scheme would be out of context with surrounding properties and if approved would set a precedent. Ollie Spragley, the applicant s agent, spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that London was becoming increasingly unaffordable. He said in recent years, rental costs had increased significantly leaving a lack of affordable housing for young people who earned too much to be helped by social housing benefits, but not enough to afford the intermediate level of housing available. He said the proposed development would bridge the gap by providing high quality accommodation that was tailored towards those leaving education and being unable to afford an intermediate level home; she said the proposal provided a private rented scheme with a shared living facility. He stated the site was ideally suited to this type of development, due to its excellent public transport links into central London and Heathrow. He said the phase one scheme on the adjoining site had demonstrated there was sufficient demand to justify the second development, and that existing permanent residents were not car dependent. With regard to site access, he stated that this was a preexisting issue for all users of the access land, due to its width. To address the issue he advised the Committee that agreement had been reached with the housing association that the wall outside O Day Court would be removed to facilitate easier construction access, with the understanding that the wall would be rebuilt post-construction. He stated that this arrangement would be included in the Construction Management Plan. He advised the Committee that the development had been carefully designed to use a timber frame system that would enable construction in 41 weeks,

4 and the shorter construction period would reduce noise and disturbance to surrounding neighbours. In relation to the height of the building relative to surrounding properties, he said there was a planning policy imperative to optimise the housing capacity of sites, particularly in areas of good public transport accessibility. He stated that the surrounding context of the location was characterised by buildings of varying storey heights, with Gunnersbury Court to the south of the site being six storeys and the undulating topography supported variety and added to interest. In summary he stated that assessment of the overall amenity impact of the development had shown there would be no unacceptable harm to adjoining residents, and whilst there would be minimal daylight/sunlight impact to the adjoining Acton Town Hotel annex, Planning Officers had not deemed this to be significant due to the transient nature of the bedrooms affected. He stated that the exemplary building design would be a positive addition to the built environment, complementing the adjoining development and reinforcing the attractiveness of the area as a place to live. He said the development proposed 20% of the units at a discount market rent that would help to house key workers at a more affordable rate, this would also benefit the Borough by ensuring younger people working in schools, hospitals and other public services had a suitable home and safe community to live in. He asked members to acknowledge the merits of the scheme and to approve the Planning Officer s recommendation to grant planning permission. In response to a query, the Development Planning Manager advised members that it was reasonable to approve the details of the Transport Management Plan and Construction Management Plan by condition. Councillor Ahmed-Shaikh asked if vehicles would be able to exit the alleyway in a forward gear. In reply, the Development Planning Manager advised that although it may be preferable to access the highway in a forward gear, this may not always be possible, and reversing onto the highway in reverse was a safe and acceptable manoeuvre. Councillor Summers stated that building companies in London frequently constructed on tight sites and professional builders knew how to manage the constraints. He expressed some sympathy with the owner of Acton Town Hotel and guests staying in the annex. Councillor Manro said he had known the site for a number of years and the Acton Town Hotel annex had been constructed using the same access arrangements as the application. In relation to car parking, he said the area had a high Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL). He said there would be minimal impact due to the loss of daylight/sunlight and he welcomed the provision of 20% affordable housing. Overall he felt the application was acceptable. Councillor Ahmed expressed some concern regarding access arrangements during the construction phase in relation to the safety of guests staying at the Acton Town Hotel. Councillor Proud stated that the proposed development would be

5 incongruous within the Conservation Area. He raised concern that the daylight/sunlight assessment had been a paper exercise and a practical assessment had not been undertaken. With regard to car parking he said that short term residents would not apply for a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) permit and would cause addition parking congestion. He felt that CPZ permits should not be provided to longer term residents. With regard to access arrangements, he felt it was inappropriate for vehicles to reverse onto the highway. Councillor R Wall stated that it was not a requirement that new developments in a Conservation Area replicated existing properties; he explained that a Conservation Area ensured that new developments did not exert any detrimental harm to existing properties. He felt the height, daylight/sunlight and car parking arrangements were acceptable. He asked where the obscure glazing would be installed. In reply, the Development Planning Manager reported that glazing would be fitted in the east and west elevation to preserve residents privacy. Amanda Campbell, Senior Regeneration Lawyer, advised members that the application was acceptable in respect of access, daylight/sunlight, impact on the Conservation Area and car parking arrangements, which could be restricted by a Section 106 Agreement. Councillor Mahmood referred to an received from the Ward Councillor, Councillor Yvonne Johnson and reported that she had requested the Committee consider the residents in O Day Court who faced noise and traffic of Gunnersbury Lane and people coming and going from the other three buildings which surrounded them. Councillor Johnson had asked the Committee, if minded to approve the application, to consider lowering the height to minimise impact. Councillor Mahmood asked if the local authority was able to monitor the 20% market discount. In response, the Development Planning Manager advised that the design would ensure the amenity of all residents was preserved and a Section 106 Agreement would include a monitoring clause. Councillors Summers and L Wall said they were in favour of the application. Councillor Raza asked if the tree line would be maintained in order to mitigate the impact of the construction period. She expressed concern about the migration of key workers to areas outside London, due to high property rental and purchase prices. Councillor Proud expressed concern about the application being located in a Conservation Area and the use of obscure glazing in living areas. The Development Planning Manager provided clarification and advised the Committee that the application would not be located with a Conservation Area; however the Mill Hill Conservation Area adjoined the neighbouring site 115 Gunnersbury Lane on the eastern side.

6 Following a lengthy discussion the application was put to the vote. RESOLVED: To GRANT - planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement, and conditions as set out in the agenda report and recommended amendments in the briefing notes. ITEM 03 - The White Hart, 49 High Street, Southall UB1 3HF - MAP Proposal: Redevelopment of the site to provide 111 flats (82 x one bed, 26 x two bed and 3 x three bed units) and 333sqm commercial floor space accommodated within a part seven to nine storey residential building fronting onto the High Street with ground floor commercial use (retail, and/or financial/professional services, and/or restaurant/café flexible A1, A2 and A3 use classes)(block A); and an adjoining part three to five storey residential building fronting onto Shrubbery Road (Block B); together with associated pedestrian through-access, disabled car parking, cycle storage, private and communal amenity spaces, refuse and recycling storage, and hard and soft landscaping. Katie Crosby, Principal Planner, introduced the application and referred members to the additional information provided in the briefing note. The briefing note set out an amended recommendation. The Committee was advised that the application was consistent with the aims of the relevant policies of the Ealing Development Management Development Plan 2013, Ealing Core Strategy (2012), The London Plan (2016, Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance, the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) and emerging planning policy documents. Members were therefore recommended to approve planning permission with conditions, subject to a legal agreement. Sonny Jassal, a local resident, spoke on behalf of residents of Shrubbery Road, in objection to the application. He said the application, in such a relatively small area of land was overdevelopment and was excessive. He stated that past applications in the area had not exceeded five storeys and applications facing Shrubbery Road had not exceeded three storeys. He said residents were not in favour of a nine storey building, nor the three to five storey buildings which would overlook may properties on the road. He said the development would have a great impact on nearby residents and three local estate agents had agreed that light would be greatly reduced, therefore affecting property valuations. He stated that houses on both sides of Shrubbery Road would suffer from loss of light and the impact would be worse in the winter months. He stated that the development sought to create as many flats as possible, building as high as possible, but with very little regard for surrounding houses that would have to live in its shadow. With regard to design, he stated the proposed buildings were not sympathetic or sensitive and were of a style that sat uncomfortably with the Victorian terraced houses on Shrubbery Road. He raised objections to the use of balconies, roof top gardens, a communal area, and the widening of the school passage towards the Shrubbery Road

7 end, the loss of privacy, external noise nuisance and possible anti-social behaviour from people congregating. He raised further concern that communal refuse bins would lead to over-filling, fly-tipping and vermin. He said that Shrubbery Road had an existing problem with car parking and traffic congestion due to the close proximity to the high street, a religious building and nearby schools and he felt restricting permits for new residents would not ease the problem. In summary, he said that residents did not dispute the fact the site had been derelict for years, however they would like a development which was less extreme in its scale, and would achieve a balance by reflecting the surrounding houses; which he felt the current application did not in its present form. Jamie Wallace, the applicant s agent, spoke in support of the proposal. He said the site had been vacant for a long time and the application presented an opportunity to re-development the redundant brown field site. The site was situated within the Southall Major Town centre and was identified within the Southall Opportunity Area Planning Framework, as part of the Southall Broadway and South Road. He reported that following a public consultation exercise, the design of the scheme had been revised to address concerns raised in relation to loss of light and overlooking. He urged the Committee to approve the application. Councillor Mahmood welcomed the application and felt it was a good redevelopment of a brown field site. He said the footpath in front of the site was narrow and asked if it would be widened. The Principal Planner reported that the footpath would be widened and the details would be confirmed in a Section 106 Agreement. Councillor Martin said the principle of the development was acceptable and similar to development on Uxbridge Road. She raised some concern about the loss of light to No.24 Shrubbery Road and felt that two hours of sunlight was inadequate. She asked for details regarding refuse arrangements. In reply, the Principal Planner explained that all residents would have internal access to a refuse area and a site manager would be responsible for collecting the refuse and putting it out for collection. With regard to daylight/sunlight to No.24 Shrubbery Road, the Principal Planner explained that 50% of the garden would receive at least two hours of sunlight on 21 March Spring Equinox, and this complied with Building Research Establishment (BRE) guidelines; therefore it was considered there would be no undue loss of sunlight, daylight or overshadowing to neighbouring properties as a result of the application. Councillor Manro said the scheme was a high quality development that would provide much needed affordable housing. Councillor Proud stated that the density of the development based on

8 0.26 ha site would equate to 427 u/ha and 896 hr/ha, and therefore would exceed the policy upper recommended range; he felt the proposal was overdevelopment. Councillor Ahmed, said he thought the development would add value to Southall. With regards to car parking, he sought confirmation that CPZ permits would not be issued to residents. In reply, the Principal Planner confirmed that parking permits for the CPZ would be prohibited as part of the legal agreement. Councillor Proud felt free car club membership for residents of the development should be provided in perpetuity. The Principal Planner said it would be unreasonable to require the developer to subsidise free car club membership indefinitely, and felt that the three year period would allow enough time for residents to appreciate the benefits of car club membership. Following a lengthy discussion the application was put to the vote. Members unanimously elected to approve the application. RESOLVED: To GRANT - planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 Agreement, and conditions as set out in the agenda report and recommended amendments in the briefing notes. 7 ITEM 01 - The Straight, Southall UB1 1QX - MAP Proposal: Application for Minor material amendments (Section 73) to the approved drawings as listed under condition 3 and removal of condition 41 (details of soakaways) of outline planning permission reference PP/2015/4682 dated which relate to the Western Access pertaining to the 2016 masterplan in respect of outline approval for demolition of 22 houses; the remediation of the land and the redevelopment of the site to deliver a large mixed use development including residential, non-food retail, food retail, restaurants, bars and cafes, hotel, conference and banqueting, cinema, health care facilities, education facilities, office/studio units, car park, sports pavilion, an energy centre, multi-storey car park and associated car and cycle parking, landscaping, public realm, open space and children's play space. Full application: new access roads from the Hayes-By-Pass and Southall Town Centre to the application site for vehicle, cycle and pedestrian access, including drainage and a flood relief pond. Widening of South Road across the railway line, for the creation of a bus lane and three new accesses onto Beaconsfield road. Two bridges over the Grand Union Canal and Yeading Brook to provide pedestrian and cycle access to the Minet Country Park and Springfield Road application reference P/2008/3981-S dated 29 September The quantum of development remains the same as the original scheme with the exception that the proposed development includes revised positioning of the hotel, supermarket and banqueting hall; the removal of the multi-

9 storey car park to be replaced by basement car parking spaces; the removal of the east/west bus and taxi route through the Civic Square to be replaced by a dedicated pedestrian and cycle route and use for emergency vehicular access; proposed changes to the horizontal and vertical (height differences ranging between minus 4.5m and plus 17.5m) parameters and the locations of ground and upper floor uses; with an amendment to the spatial arrangement of the public and private realm with no change in the public-private realm split. Paul Ricketts, Principal Planner, introduced the application and referred members to the additional information provided in the briefing note. The briefing note set out a corrected table showing the maximum building heights for the proposed development plots. There were no members of the public registered to speak in relation to the application. Members were advised that the proposed changes would make the scheme more sustainable, accessible, ensure a higher quality development, and would secure improvements to the public realm. The Principal Planner therefore recommended that planning permission be approved, subject to conditions and a Deed of Variation to the Section 106 Agreement. Members unanimously elected to approve the application. RESOLVED: To GRANT - planning permission subject to the completion of a Deed of Variation to the S106 Agreement, and conditions as set out in the agenda report and recommended amendments in briefing notes. 8 Date of Next Meeting It was noted that the next meeting would take place on Wednesday 16 th August 2017 at 7.00pm

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Appeal Decision Hearing held on 9 September 2015 Site visit made on 9 September 2015 by G J Rollings BA(Hons) MA(UD) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government