We note that although technically allowed, this approach is a deliberate manipulation of the planning system. We send in an objection if we consider a proposed development to be unsuitable in view of its scale, density, aesthetic qualities or impact on the local environment. Fern Bank, 2A Golden Manor, W7 3EE – 202794NMA – Application for a Non-Material Amendment in (S96a) seeking to allow lightwells to the side of dwelling on both sides in relation to planning permission reference 200106VAR dated 19/06/2020 for ‘Application for a Minor Material Amendment (S73a) to vary condition 2 (Approved Plans) of planning permission ref: 193811VAR dated 11/11/2019 for: Minor material amendment (S.73) to vary conditions no.2 (Approved Plans), no.3 (Parking Spaces), no.4 (Refuse Storage), no.5 (Cycle Storage) and no.8(Scheme of Landscaping) pursuant to planning permission reference 185210VAR dated 04/01/2019 for’ Application for Minor Material Amendment (S.73 Application) for the variation of Condition 2 (Approved Drawings), Condition 3 (Car Parking), Condition 4 (Refuse) and Condition 5 (Cycle storage) of Planning Permission ref: 172082VAR, granted on appeal Ref: APP/A5270/W/17/3191628 dated 25/04/2018, for ‘Application for Minor Material Amendment (S73)/Variation of condition 2 (approved drawings) of planning permission ref. PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Council has received the following applications that are required to be statutorily advertised. Development should be designed to include features reflecting the prominent corner location of the site and respond to the ensemble of corner buildings that characterise the crossroads. self-contained flats; provision of 3no. In addition, I have personal experience working within various planning departments and as an Inspector f… St Augustines Priory School, Hillcrest Road, Ealing, W5 2JL, Construction of three-storey infill extension comprising additional classrooms, learning resource centre and associated hardstanding; construction of two-storey sports hall extension with ancillary changing facilities; installation of detached two-storey temporary (two years) classroom structure; retrospective application to retain detached single-storey classroom structure for a temporary two-year period (Departure Application) (Major Application). Ealing Council. The proposed 6 units would deliver a density of 120 units per hectare. In summary, this unsuitable application should be refused and revised proposals developed. This would have a particularly overwhelming effect on the low-rise Victorian terraced housing to the north and west of the site as well as being completely out of keeping with the architecture of the area. Although an obscure glazed panel is proposed to the side towards number 22, these will still allow unacceptable overlooking to the rear garden of number 26 and also to the rear garden of 2A Rathgar Avenue. We are extremely disappointed that the applicant does not appear to have taken into account our comments to the pre-application community consultation. Information on the services provided by the council, and how to access them. The author then attempts to challenge the status of the independent analysis of the character of the conservation area carried out in [2004] which specifically highlighted the positive contribution that the building makes to the Conservation Area. We submitted a further objection following revisions by the applicant and the provision of a ‘heritage statement’ in July 2020. They are specially trained and the committee has to reach its decisions based on planning laws, as well as on all kinds of guidance. We maintain our view that this scheme must respect more the height of its surroundings, in particular, the Grade II listed Acton Town Station and the adjacent Victorian sub-station. Gurnell Leisure Centre, Ruislip Road East, W13 0AL – 201695FUL – Demolition of all existing buildings and erection of replacement leisure centre (Use Class D2), facilitating affordable and market housing residential development (Use Class C3) in 6 blocks, flexible retail floorspace (Use Classes A1 – A3), plant room and energy centre, leisure centre coach parking, basement residential and leisure centre cycle and car parking, refuse/recycling storage, new servicing, vehicular and pedestrian accesses and associated highway works, new and replacement play space, public realm and public open space, landscaping and associated ground works to existing public open space. Previously permitted co-living developments in the Borough are typified by more communal space and fewer facilities within the actual units, which differentiates them from C3 uses. We consider that the local area is essentially suburban in nature rather than urban, where lower densities of 150-250 hr/ha and 35-95 u/ha apply, making the proposals over 4 times the maxima. ), replacement and relocation of the existing sub-station, associated enabling landscape and public realm works and provision of new pedestrian and vehicle access. Making a planning application Submit your application online Ealing Council works in partnership with the Planning Portal. We refute the view of the applicant that the existing buildings do not contribute to the Conservation Area. As noted above, all the evidence is that the house is almost completely unaltered from when it was built in this form and there is no evidence for any subsequent additions or extensions. The application remains undetermined. Submit comments on Planning Applications during the consultation period of the application process. Home / Planning and building control / Search for a planning application; Search . We consider the planned increase of the existing building footprint by a factor of 2 and of built volume on the site by a factor of 8 to be completely unacceptable. Please note, from Friday 1 March 2019, Ealing Council will publish, without redaction, all viability statements and information submitted as part of a planning application. You can find out more information on what makes a planning application referable to the Mayor on ‘What powers does the Mayor have for planning applications’ page. It is expected that planning agents will submit information in a format suitable for immediate publication, as part of the initial validation process. We object most strongly to the design of the proposed building. Ealing Civic Society objects to a number of aspects of this proposed development, which in summary we consider would cause substantial and unacceptable harm to the Ealing Town Centre Conservation Area, its residential neighbours and many heritage assets, is of inadequate design quality and does not adhere to aspects of planning policy. The arguments put forward are not VSC in the context of MOL in that they do not, in and of themselves, necessitate the development going ahead and the loss of MOL land. Construction of two single storey detached dwelling houses; Conversion of existing building ( 3 residential units ) into 10 self-contained flats; Single storey side/rear (wrap around) extension, following demolition ox exiting garage; Part first floor rear extension including the creation of a terrace/balcony; Part first floor side extension; Rear roof extension, side roof extension, insertion of a bigger window to the front gable end and installation of three roof lights to front roof slope . For example, the balconies for the 1b2p flats are just 3m2 which is below the London Plan Housing SPG standard of 5m2 and we do not consider that this is compensated for by some semi-private or shared amenity space. Ealing Council has doubled the consultation period for all major and most residential and small scheme planning applications from the statutory three weeks (21 days) to six weeks (42 days) but residents groups in the borough point out this is pointless if it is close to impossible for many residents to find out what is going on. Apart from the practical difficulties this would result in for such activities as moving in or out or bulky deliveries, it does not meet lifetime homes requirements. The current site of the BMX cycle track has already required encroachment upon MOL and its planned relocation would require further MOL development on the hitherto undeveloped meadowland, without equivalent restitution of the previous site, now proposed to be subsumed as part of the Gurnell Pool redevelopment. Planning. On the question of affordability, we note that the planned 144 residential units would be 100% affordable, with a 35%/65% London Living Rent/Shared Ownership split. In the submitted planning statement, it is suggested that the guideline density applicable to the location is 45-170 u/ha. The design and finishes of all blocks are uninspired and in particular blocks A and B, which will provide the affordable housing units, have all the appearance of just the sort of Local Authority high-rise blocks that are now recognised as a failure of the 60s/70s and are being torn down. This application once again fails to provide the necessary background details relating to enabling development and is thus unacceptable in its current form. The application … It cannot be both transitioning to a new, as yet unestablished style, and also a hybrid of that style. Guardian columnist Tim Dowling visits Horsenden Woods, Update on Perceval House planning application, The height and massing of development on this site should both respond to the adjacent Crossrail station and to the bulk of the buildings featured at this intersection. Finally, we object to the proposed replacement buildings which would not be in keeping, and actually clash, with their neighbours – further to the detriment of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. This is pure fantasy and, needless to say, no evidence is adduced for this assertion and inspection of the plans [and building records] confirm it is baseless. The absurdity of this position is summed up in the totally bizarre assertion that the design of the proposed replacement building is more successful than the existing property because it “refers to the Traditional style in terms of its design, scale, massing and detailing”. Long Acre Court, Argyle Road, West Ealing, W13 0DA, Construction of a three storey residential building comprising nine x 2 bedroom flats; vehicle and cycle parking, refuse storage, landscaping (following demolition of existing garages). We can advise you on how Ealing planning policy might affect your aspirations to extend your home, build a conservatory or convert your loft. We have particular concerns about the planned southernmost block of 25 storeys, which would far exceed the height of any of the surrounding buildings, including those in Chiswick Business Park. For this reason we consider that the final decision should be taken out of the Council’s hands and taken by the Secretary of State. The site is situated within the Ealing Cricket Ground Conservation Area, and we do not consider that the proposed design would preserve or enhance the area. The explanatory notes state at para 4.16.7 that this is because this form of accommodation ‘does not meet minimum housing space standards and is not considered suitable as a form of affordable housing itself’. Search website Search. Setting aside the fact that it is not a ‘hybrid’ building, this is simply a case of calling night as day. The Drawing and Planning team of Architects, Structural Engineers, Town Planners and Consultants are here to make the planning process straightforward and stress free, helping you successfully achieve planning application first time with Ealing Council! In summary, the proposal is not acceptable in its present form and should be refused.”. Stockdove Way would also become even more congested than it currently is due to the access route it provides to Perivale Park Athletics Track. Extent of Development. Planning. Although we note that Historic England takes the view that the harm to heritage assets would amount to less than substantial in policy terms, we would respectfully suggest that they underestimate this harm and we consider it to likely to be substantial in practice . Finally, we consider that the planned building would be far too close to its neighbours in Horn Lane and have a very negative impact on their outlook, particularly the proposed blank eastern wall. There is a key requirement in Draft London Plan Policy H16 that in order to qualify as a sui-generis use class, co-living spaces must be of ‘adequate size and demonstrably not Use Class C3’. In the planning statement, the applicants acknowledge that the location is suburban yet then go on to claim that it should be assessed as urban as it is close to the Uxbridge Road. Ealing Council. The Council will also wish to note that, because each unit is planned to have its own kitchenette and bathroom, technically, this development would not be an HMO as asserted in the application. Ealing Council Planning Department Phone: (020) 8825 5845 Ealing Council Planning Department Website: Ealing Website Ealing Council Planning Dept Email: planpol@ealing.gov.uk Ealing Council Planning Department Address: Perceval House, 4th Floor SW, 14-16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing W5 2HL The height of the building cannot be considered to respond to the scale or appearance of the buildings on the other ‘corners’ of the crossroads and the setting of the locally listed sorting office would be harmed by such a large development rather than enhanced. In addition, we would encourage the Council to respond to any comments from the Brentham Garden Estate Conservation Area Panel about the design of the planned development, given its proximity to neighbouring heritage assets, in particular, the Grade II listed Brentham Club. It is a billing authority collecting Council Tax and business rates, it processes local planning applications, and it is responsible for housing, waste collection and environmental health. “The work of our planning consultants within Ealing Council includes: planning applications, pre-applications, enforcement appeals, planning appeals, certificates of lawful development, duty planner service & architectural drawings. This application now proposes the provision of 10 rather than 9 flats within a similar building envelope and the addition of two single storey detached houses. Given the grandeur of the neighbouring properties, the proposed roof windows would benefit from being of conservation style despite the site not being located in a conservation area. In addition, as a matter of record, Council officers have previously advised the Society that Listed Building Consent is not required in order to mount a plaque on a Listed Building.”. We note that in pre-application discussions, planners advised the applicant that a maximum of 7 storeys should be considered and for this reason alone, the proposals would be unacceptable. This application attracted 50 objections and has been withdrawn (suggesting that the Council may have advised it would not be approved); we await a revised submission. Every month our Environment Committee goes through the major planning applications submitted to Ealing Council. In addition, the planned materials would be unsympathetic to those used elsewhere this vicinity. This is then contrasted with the “weakness” of the existing building on account of the “synthesis of the interwar form and the Arts & Crafts style” it demonstrates. Flats located entirely at basement level provide sub-optimal living conditions and are particularly unsuitable for families. Local groups including ECS have made a joint complaint to Ealing Council regarding the way the Planning Committee was conducted. Ealing Council. It is not clear whether this latter requirement would be in practice be met. We do not believe that this substantial harm could ever be outweighed by any alleged public benefits deriving from the scheme (policies 194 and 196 of the NPPF refer). Although it is claimed that the homes are designed to lifetime homes standards, the proposal is for a three storey building with no lift. Ealing Civic Society objects to this application. Design elements: cantilevered front block; alignment of Uxbridge Road frontage. In this case, the addition of just one unit in a multi-block development may seem insignificant, but we had concerns about the approach being used and the impact on the amenity of the development if granted, so submitted an objection. Although an obscure glazed panel is proposed to the side towards number 24, these will still allow unacceptable overlooking to the rear amenity area of Trend Court and, tangentially, to the rear garden of 2A Rathgar Avenue. You will also be able to comment on live applications. In addition, the proposed new site for the cycle track is much less appropriate than its current site because the track would impact negatively on housing immediately to its north and be significantly less convenient for residents of the Gurnell Grove Estate who benefit from the current location.