posted in: Planning | 0

architectureThe Society’s Planning Committee comments on all significant planning applications. These are the recent responses which we have submitted to the Council:

6 Portal Way, Acton, W3 6RU (192597OPDFUL)

Construction of an additional 10 storeys on Block A comprising 73 flats (44 x 1 bed and 29 x 2 bed); 4 storeys on Block C comprising 24 flats (24 x 1 bed); provision of a minimum 35% of the total number of additional habitable rooms as affordable housing Block B, and associated changes to the basement and ground floor levels to provide additional cycle storage and minor changes to the approved landscaping layout (resulting in 97 additional flats overall, bringing the total number on-site up to 701 (comprising 426 x 1 bed, 242 x 2 bed and 33 x 3 bed)

ECS objected to this application:

Ealing Civic Society objects to this application on grounds of overdevelopment.  In line with our comments to the previous application 161144FUL, our concerns that the proposals are too high, too dense and lacking in amenity space are only increased by the addition of 10 and 4 storeys to the tallest blocks.  As some mitigation, if the Council is minded to approve the application then it should insist on a high level of affordable accommodation.  In line with the London Plan, the Council should push for at least 50% affordable housing.

Site of A J Spares, Derwent Road, Ealing, W5 4TN (193159FUL)

Construction of 4 storey, part 2 storey, building to include 9 self-contained flats (Use Class C3) and a roof winter garden; Excavation to provide basement level to be use as office/storage ( Mixed Use Class B1/B8). (Following demolition of existing building)

ECS objected to this application:

Ealing Civic Society objects to this application on the grounds of overdevelopment.  We have not been able to assess the application fully due to inadequate accompanying documentation and we are surprised that it has been validated by the Council.  The existing site has been insufficiently surveyed and there has been no Environmental Impact Assessment; there is also no provision of existing and proposed elevations.  In addition, the application lacks a suitable daylight assessment.  This is particularly important as the 4-storey east wall of the development is planned to abut the end of the gardens of the adjoining properties in Derwent Road, which are just 10 metres long.    Therefore, it is imperative that the developers demonstrate using a BRE-approved daylight and sunlight assessment that the development would not have an adverse impact on these neighbouring properties.  We also object to the proposed office space in the basement, planned with small legally non-compliant high level windows.  Finally, we are concerned that the proposed green wall and winter garden would require considerable maintenance for which there are insufficient plans in the application.

 134-136 Broadway, West Ealing, W13 0TL (192965FUL)

Demolition of the existing buildings on the site and erection of a part four-storey and part five-storey building comprising 19 no. residential units and an A1 shop unit on the ground floor

ECS objected to this application:

Ealing Civic Society objects to this application.  We note that it is a re-submission of a previously refused application for which there is an appeal to be heard in October 2019.  We reiterate our objections to that application for this latest application.  The overall appearance of the proposed building would be far too dominant onto the Broadway in West Ealing and exceed the height of its neighbours, which would be unacceptable.  In addition, we consider the proposed £420K Section 106 contribution in lieu of affordable housing to be inadequate.  We can see no reason why the site cannot accommodate affordable housing units within the development.  It is unsatisfactory to state there will be affordable housing provided in lieu elsewhere in the absence of evidence, such as an audit trail, that it will be delivered.

Furthermore, we draw the Council’s attention to the application form which is misleading – this is an application for a part 5- and part 6-storey building, which has been recorded inaccurately in the application form and has been transferred to provide an incorrect application description on the Council’s website.  This needs to be rectified.  Finally, should the Council be minded to approve this application, we consider it important that a condition is included requiring a detailed landscaping scheme requiring planning approval.

 New Inn, 62 St Mary’s Road, Ealing, W5 5EX (192805ADV)  EALING GREEN CA

Installation of 1no. replacement externally illuminated sign written fascia sign with replacement trough light to front elevation; Installation of 1no. replacement internally illuminated swing sign with edge lighting to front elevation; Installation of 2no. new non-illuminated entrance plaques to front elevation; Installation of 1no. new externally illuminated sign written sign with new trough light to side elevation

ECS objected to this application (but did not consider that there were grounds to object to an accompanying application for various internal and external changes to the premises):

Ealing Civic Society objects to this application.  Any changes to the New Inn public house need to be suitably respectful of its locally listed building status situated within the Ealing Green Conservation Area.  Consequently, we object to the replacement of the existing heritage pub sign with a bland brewery sign, which we consider would have an adverse effect on both the building and the Conservation Area.

67 Warwick Road, Ealing, W5 5QE (193120HH)

Mansard roof extension to provide third floor; first floor rear extension

ECS objected to this application, and noted that there was also a further application for a minor extension at second floor level which was acceptable:

Ealing Civic Society objects to this application.  Number 67 Warwick Road is one of a group of four terraced locally listed late 18th Century houses (nos 61 – 67) of identical form adjacent to a Conservation Area.  We object to the installation of a mansard roof because it would destroy the symmetry and architectural integrity of this terrace with the gable end visually intrusive in views from the south.  In addition, as the house at one end of the terrace, number 67 is adjacent to a much smaller terrace of early Victorian cottages.  The  addition of a mansard roof to this house would completely overwhelm these cottages, which would be unacceptable.  The additional storey would also be overbearing on the more recent 2-storey houses on the opposite side of Warwick Road.

27 Avenue Gardens, Acton, W3 8HB (191035FUL)  MILL HILL PARK CONSERVATION AREA

Three storey side extension and two storey rear extension incorporation roof terrace at second floor level (following demolition of existing two storey side and single storey rear extension); provision of additional 1 x 1bed self-contained residential unit (in total 6 units); and reconfiguration and alterations to existing residential units

ECS objected to this application:

Ealing Civic Society objects to this application.  We consider that a 3-storey side extension and 2-storey rear extension would cause significant harm to this house and the Mill Hill Park Conservation Area in which it sits.  Currently, the building has a very pleasant 2-storey, well set-back service wing which is matched by the same on the other side of this semi-detached pair.  Demolition of this service wing would destroy the symmetry of this pair of houses and harm the character of the Conservation Area.

 We also considered proposals for development at Ironbridge House (Windmill Road, Southall) which were being consulted on at a pre-application exhibition.  Further opportunities to object will arise when a planning application is submitted.  We said:

Ealing Civic Society, a local amenity group serving Ealing borough, was not notified of the public exhibition about Ironbridge House and has only become aware of it after the ‘deadline’ for comments of 19th July.  We are therefore submitting our comments by email, as follows:

  • The proposal for a tower building of over 20 floors at this site would represent considerable overdevelopment.  The tower would be far too tall and out-of-keeping with the wider surrounding area, which comprises mainly low rise residential and industrial property.
  • The proposed tower would be widely visible, not only by local residents and industry workers, but also users of local recreational and open spaces.
  • The immediate vicinity includes Windmill Bridge (known locally as ‘Three Bridges’), which is a national scheduled ancient monument, and the locally listed Iron Bridge itself.  The proposed building would impact negatively on these heritage assets.
  • Much of the area close to the proposed tower comprises industrial buildings and is, therefore, not conducive to comfortable residential development.  Families, particularly in a high-rise development would be quite isolated from any residential community and a significant distance away from local public services such as shops and schools.
  • The development does not provide for sufficient amenity space.  The proposed roof-top amenity space would be inappropriate and inadequate for young families.
  • The area has a relatively poor PTAL rating of 3 which means that public transport provision would be inadequate for the large number of residents that would be anticipated within a residential development of this proposed size.