Save Ealing Green Spaces

This is a letter we have just sent to the planning officer as these points were not addressed at the committee meeting.

Dear Alan,

Hope all is well.

Attached are your minutes of the planning meeting on January 15th and also a picture of the new proposed site, i understand these minutes will need to be ratified on February 19th. I also understand that there may be some Councillors asked to ratify these minutes who were not even at the January 15th meeting. Could i ask the following questions to ensure that i have the facts correct ?

1 Is the picture below of the Astro Turf correct ? I have seen two proposal one with one astro turf area & another with two. Can you clarify ?
2 Will there be disabled lifts to take wheelchair users to the upper classrooms & upper floors and if so how many ? If not how will wheelchair users gain access ?
3 Are your notes & my comments correct ? If not can you correct any of my comments that are wrong to ensure accuracy.
4 Where will the schools Coaches, & also importantly their mini buses & vans,( that are parked on their site behind 12/14 & 26 Castlebar ) be parked when they move to the Carlton Road site.
5 If on Carlton Road in perpetuity will there be a section 106 payment to cover this.
6 The school will be shut & pupils not at school 190 days of the year - where will these vehicles be during that time
7 Will there be any Parent /teacher evenings or rehearsal evenings for plays, concerts, nativity that may disrupt community use. If so how many can we expect a year.
8 Will this site as a whole give a bio-diversity net gain - not just the buildings.
9 What percentage and square meterage of the current grass area is to be covered by buildings & astro turf once this plan goes ahead.
10 The application states there will be no increase in the 90 staff. Is this on the first day of opening or for any significant time.
11 Where are the catering staff mentioned to receive ,prepare, cook, serve, clear away, re-cycle & administer the 630 lunches served daily
12 Will this be done via deployment of current staff / teachers.

Thank you for your help.

Regards,

X # # # # # # # # #

Our Ref: GC/B0248/18
Your Ref: 191182FUL

3rd February 2020

Alan Corcoran
London Borough of Ealing
Planning Service
4th floor, Perceval House
EALING
W5 2HL


Dear Mr Corcoran,
FURTHER OBJECTION TO PLANNING APPLICATION – Durston House School 12-14 Castlebar Road Ealing London W5 2DR (Reference: 191182FUL)
Further to my letters dated 24th April 2019, 15th July 2019, 17th December 2019 and 14th January 2020 (attached in appendix 1), I would like to set out a further objection to the application and ask that this is forwarded to the Greater London Authority as part of the stage 2 referral process. This primarily sets out that the Greater London Authority should direct refusal of the application as it would be clearly contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan with overstated benefits.

This letter is being sent on behalf of the residents of Carlton Road, Pinewood Grove and Oak Tree Close. The residents are listed in appendix 1 of my letter of 24th April 2019.

The proposed development would be contrary to London Plan policies that protect open space and playing fields, seek the delivery of the maximum amount of affordable housing, prevent air quality worsening, seek biodiversity net gain, encourage good design, and ensures that transport choices do not result in further congestion or harm to highway or pedestrian safety.

Background

At the Planning Committee meeting of 15th January 2020, the Council resolved to Grant planning permission subject to

1. The conditions and informatives set out in the committee report and amended by the briefing note.
2. Stage II referral to the Mayor of London and approval by the Secretary of State.
3. The satisfactory completion of an Agreement under s106 of the Town and Country Planning Act covering community use of the facilities and other planning gains
4. The satisfactory introduction and maintenance of a School Travel Plan to achieve and maintain at least a TfL silver STARS accreditation.

The resolution to grant by Ealing Council was finely balanced and the Committee voted narrowly to grant permission (6 votes to 5). The draft minutes state:

“The Chair provided a summary, highlighting that the Committee needed to carefully balance the decision, noting that the Council was not adhering to its policy regarding green space, but that this needed to be balanced with the need for improved school facilities and child experience. It was also noted that there would still be additional scrutiny of the proposal at Stage Two GLA referral and Secretary of State referral. The Chair did note that the Committee had approved similar developments in the past, and that there was a need for school improvements in the borough.”

The summary of the minutes was based on the assessment set out in the Officers report which stated:

“Notwithstanding the net loss of some playing field and the impact upon the open space, on balance, the overall benefits of the proposed development are considered to outweigh the limited harm. Planning benefits would include: opening the private facilities to the public through a formal Community Use Agreement, the creation of 108 additional school places in a highly accessible location, provision of a significantly improved educational facility designed to meet current development standards, provision of an indoor hall and all-weather sports pitch to provide year-round sports and recreation opportunities for the community and pupils, the creation of 17 additional homes and securing sustainable travel improvements through a School Travel Plan requirement, sustainable travel initiatives and monitoring secured through the S106. (Summary page 2 of report)”

The assessment below sets out why the Council’s assessment was incorrect and why the Mayor should direct refusal having regard to Article 6(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2008, including the principal purposes of the Greater London Authority, the effect on health and sustainable development, national policies and international obligations, and regional planning guidance. The Mayor may direct refusal if he considers that to grant permission would be contrary to good strategic planning in Greater London.




Assessment

The strategic issues raised by this application are set out in the GLA’s stage 1 response dated 13th May 2019 (GLA/4597/01). The issues are: Principle of development; Affordable housing, Urban design, Sustainable development; Transport and Urban Design. I will now deal with each in turn.

Principle of development

At stage 1 the GLA indicated that: “The proposal would result in a loss of open space and playing field. Any such loss must be clearly outweighed by public benefits, including a robust community use package to be secured by Section 106 agreement. The reconversion of the existing school sites at 26 and 12-14 Castlebar Road and 9 Longfield Road to residential use is supported in principle (Paragraphs 11-17).”

Education

London Plan Policy 3.17 and draft London Plan Policy S1 identify that additional and enhanced social infrastructure provision, including schools, is required to meet the needs of London’s growing and diverse population.

The stage 1 response recognised that the additional 108 school places “would support educational choice and indirectly respond to general educational need in Ealing and neighboring boroughs by relieving pressure on the state school system.”. This took account of the existing shortfall of 3.5 primary forms of entry in 2016 and an expected shortfall of 19 secondary forms of entry in 2019.

The need is overstated as the existing school has capacity and furthermore need is being met through the Council’s school improvement programme. Ada Lovelace will open this September providing 1,330 new school places locally. There is simply no need for the additional school place. On this basis, no weight should be given to need.

Furthermore, the school have made claims regarding improvement in educational provisions. These again are overstated as demonstrated by the existing Independent Schools Inspection reports of 2015 and 2018 found no issue with the existing facilities. The art, science & IT facilities are rated excellent by the School inspectorate.

Open space

Policy 7.18 of the London Plan requires that loss of protect open spaces such as Carlton Road Playing Fields (Designated in Ealing’s Local Plan as Community Open Space) be resisted unless equivalent or better quality provision is made within the local catchment area. Replacement of one type of open space with another is unacceptable unless an up to date needs assessment shows that this would be appropriate. This approach is replicated in policy G4 of the Draft London Plan.

The table set out below was included within the addendum to the Committee report (Briefing Note). This shows that there would be a 16% decrease in open space. This table is incorrect as the hardstanding area of 3,510 sq m does not include the astroturf pitch and should be increased by 2,365 sq m. The table also needs amending with the removal of the astroturf pitch from the proposed soft landscaping. These areas need to be consistent with Figure 3.2 of the submitted Planning Statement.



The actual loss of open space is 4, 548 sq m is 35% not 16%.

The loss of open space would be significant as it is in an area of deficiency and would be clearly contrary to policy 7.18 and G4 of the Adopted and draft London Plan.

Playing Fields and community use

London Plan Policy 3.19 and draft London Plan Policy S5 both seek to ensure that the capital has a sufficient supply of good quality sports and recreation facilities. These seek to protect playing fields unless they are: 1) surplus to requirements; or 2) loss would be replaced by better in an alternative location; or 3) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. This policy follows paragraph 97 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

As the proposal involves loss of playing fields, Sport England have assessed the application according to paragraph 97 of the NPPF and concludes:

“Sport England are unable to consider that there are sufficient benefits to the proposal to outweigh the loss of playing field consequently the proposal would not meet any of the exceptions of its Playing Field Policy.”

The community use that is proposed is obviously limited to outside school hours and various restrictions are proposed to the extent that use will be extremely limited. The draft community use agreement does not even include hours of community use and the affordability of community hire rates (which is limited to specific groups linked to Durston House). Indeed, there is no information at all as to the extent of the community use. The concerns in my letter dated 17th December 2019 have not been addressed and in the absence of adequate information, no weight can be given to the vague prospect of community use.
Given the formal objection from Sport England, the proposal must be therefore contrary to London Plan Policy 3.19 and draft London Plan Policy S5.

Affordable housing

London Plan Policies 3.11 and 3.12 and draft London Plan Policy H5 and Policy H6 seek to
maximise the delivery of affordable housing, setting a strategic target of 50% across London. The Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability Supplementary Planning Guidance seeks to increase the provision of affordable housing in London and embed affordable housing into land prices.

The stage 1 response states: “ The scheme is subject to the 35% threshold within draft London Plan Policy H6 and the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG - which in this case is equivalent to between five and six affordable homes (by unit). Following conclusion of a robust process of independent viability review, GLA officers seek further discussions with the applicant and Ealing Council with respect to the on-site delivery of the maximum level of affordable housing in line with London Plan Policy 3.12 and draft London Plan Policy H6. Early and late stage reviews should also be secured in line with London Plan Policy H6 to ensure the scheme delivers the maximum amount of affordable housing.”

There are several issues on which the Council have failed to address in their resolution to grant. These are set out in my two letters dated 14th January 2020. The issues are:

a) No explanation or detail why on-site provision cannot be made;
b) No response to the detailed response provided by Davis Coffer Lyons (see appendix 5 of my letter of 24th April 2019 attached in Appendix 1) regarding GDV and profit. The development can clearly deliver more affordable housing. The concerns raised have not been addressed by the Council’s advisors Barton Wilmore;
c) No detail regarding both early and late stage review mechanisms – a review mechanism as recommended by the Council on occupancy would be contrary to the Mayor’s Affordable Housing and Viability SPG.


On this basis, the proposal would be contrary to London Plan Policies 3.11, 3.12 and draft London Plan Polices H5 and H6.

Sustainable development

Air Quality

Policy 7.14B(c) of the London Plan requires proposals to be at least ‘air quality neutral’ and not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality.

Policy GG3 of the Draft London Plan 2019 requires new development to: “..seek to improve London’s air quality, reduce public exposure to poor air quality and minimise inequalities in levels of exposure to air pollution.”

The Council’s assessment set out in the Committee report (which fails to address the concerns raised by Air Pollution Services in 14 January 2020 which is attached in Appendix 3) and briefing note fails to address the following:

“• Sufficient evidence has not been provided to demonstrate that adverse air quality impacts will not occur;
• The development does not comply with Policy 7.14B(c) of the London Plan, being 28% over the benchmark;
• Mitigation measures relating to air quality are based upon incomplete assessments and understated results and are therefore not adequate. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that measures would actually result in air quality improvements;
• Sufficient evidence has not been provided to demonstrate the full extent of the effect of the development on climate change. Taking account of traffic emissions alone, the development will lead to an adverse impact on climate change and is therefore not compliant with the NPPF or Ealing’s Climate Change Strategy;
• Proposed carbon offsetting has not been based on the full extent of the development’s carbon footprint, nor over the lifetime of the development, and is therefore not adequate;
• The Target Fabric Energy Efficiency calculations provided, demonstrate that the energy strategy will result in a 191% exceedance of the Greater London Authority benchmark, and the application therefore does not comply with the Mayor’s London Plan in relation to sustainable development, and is considered to not comply with Part L of Building Regulations by the time the development would be built..”

On this basis, the proposal would be contrary to policy 7.14 of the London Plan and policy GC3 of the Draft London Plan.

Biodiversity

Policy 7.19 of the London Plan seeks the protection, enhancement, creation, promotion and
management of biodiversity. Draft policy G6 states “development proposals should manage impacts on biodiversity and aim to secure net biodiversity gain.”

The Council consistently state that the proposal would result in a net gain of Biodiversity. This is based on the conclusions set out in the “ecology appraisal Rev 3 (16/12/19)”. This states:

“The BREEAM ecological calculator is presented within Appendix 5. The calculations show that there will be no net loss with a score of 97% being achieved. This was informed by the condition assessments, which can be found in Appendix 6.” (paragraph 3.28).

By looking at Appendix 5, the pre development area biodiversity units are 26011.14 and the post development area biodiversity units are 25474.03. This is a DECREASE in biodiversity by 537.11 units, even after biodiversity enhancements secured under condition 17 have been successfully implemented.

Without looking into the methodology the applicant’s own assessment shows a decrease in biodiversity and therefore no net increase in biodiversity can be argued.

On this basis, the proposal would be contrary to policy 7.19 and G6 of the Adopted and draft London Plan.

Transport

London Plan Policy 6.1 and draft London Plan Policy T1 require developments to make the
most effective use of land and have sufficient regard to their transport impacts.

The concerns regarding the assumptions that have been made regarding highway impact are set out in the various letters from Paul Basham Associates. These are copied in Appendix 2 for information.

At stage 1 GLA identified the following issues: “the applicant must address transport issues with respect to; vehicle parking, design and quantum, blue badge parking, cycle parking design and quantum and school travel plan”.

In resolving to grant permission, the Council has failed to address the following:

1. Level of cycle parking - this cannot be delivered on site;
2. Travel Plan – the impact of this on travel behaviour is overstated and would not result in the benefits expressed;
3. Trip Generation - The relocation of the site would generate an additional 296 trips during the drop-off periods and pick-up periods. This brings the total no. of vehicles travelling along Carlton Road to 883 in the drop off period (+50%) and 697 in the pick-up period (+74%). Given existing highway issues in Carlton Road, the additional trips would have a detrimental impact on highway and pedestrian safety. The concentration would result in increased congestion and gridlock, higher levels of CO2 emissions and air pollution and greater risks to pedestrian safety;
4. Mini Buses - No consideration given by TfL and the Council of the 4/5 school mini buses currently parked on Durston’s Car Park behind 12/14 & 26 Castlebar that the applicant will now use Carlton road to Park , load, unload all year round – including the 190 days a year they are closed.; and
5. Canteen – the Transport Assessment and the assessment by TfL and the Council fails to take account of the 630 place canteen and its staff.

The proposal would therefore be contrary to London Plan Policy 6.1 and draft London Plan Policy T1.

Urban Design

London Plan Policy 3.5 ‘Quality and Design of Housing Developments’ and draft London Plan Policy D4 promote quality in new housing provision, with further guidance provided by the Mayor’s Housing SPG.

No assessment has been made of the impact of the proposal on the amenity of adjoining properties on Castlebar Road. The impact from a school is very different from the impact from a residential conversion. Even with obscure glazing there would be a significant impact on the amenity of adjoining occupiers. Furthermore, the use of obscure glazing is not good design and results in a poor environment for future occupiers. On this basis, the proposal would be contrary to policy 3.5 and D4 of the adopted and draft London Plan.


Conclusion

The application would be clearly contrary to the London Plan as the proposal would: fail to protect open space and playing fields; not deliver of the maximum amount of affordable housing; result in air quality worsening; reduce biodiversity; harms residential amenity and results in further congestion with harm to highway or pedestrian safety.

The proposal would therefore be contrary to adopted London Plan policies 3.5, 3.11, 3.12, 3.19, 7.14, 7.18, and 7.19 and draft London Plan policies D4, GC3, G4, S5, H5, H6 and T1. On this basis, Ealing should be directed to refuse planning permission.

The Council’s reasons to grant permission fails to identify that the harm is significant, and the benefits are simply illusory and overstated. The Council have failed to address the detailed objections raised and the significant concerns raised. It also relied on incorrect statements made by the applicant regarding the amount of loss of open space and biodiversity gain. Simply, if the GLA decide to set aside its own policies, the GLA will struggle to protect playing fields and open space from further development. This further supports the GLA in directing refusal.

If any further information or clarification is required, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Yours sincerely
g.cooper
Gavin Cooper BA (Hons) MA MRTPI
Principal Consultant
[email protected]

Including

Appendix 1 - Objection letters - 24th April 2019 (including appendix 1 for list of residents and appendix 5 for Davis Coffer Lyons response), 15th July 2019, 17th December 2019 and 14th January 2020 (x2) from Walsingham Planning
ppendix 2 – Objection letters – 26th April 2019. 7th June 2019 and 17th September 2019 from Paul Basham Associates
Appendix 3 – Air Quality Assessment – Air Pollution Services January 2020

URGENT PLEASE HELP SAVE OUR GREEN PLAYING FIELDS IN EALING BY SIGNING OUR PETITION.

Sign the Petition Save Ealing's Green Spaces - Say NO to Durston House School expansion

Please click the link and sign our petition https://www.change.org/p/the-london-borough-of-ealing-save-ealing-s-green-spaces-say-no-to-durston-house-school-expansion/psf/promote_or_share?source_location=signed_interrupt

These neighbouring kids know the value of green space and really appreciate being able to get together and let off steam on real grass surrounded by wonderful mature trees.
Local shop owners too want Ealing to preserve its precious open green spaces it’s so famous for.

KEY QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNING OFFICER ON DURSTON
Planning Regulations
1. The school’s own Ecological Appraisal report claims it will achieve a Biodiversity Score resulting in a NET LOSS of 3%. By not achieving a NET GAIN, Condition 17 is wrong and would be contrary to Policy G6 of the London Plan. Why does the report not pick this up?
2. The National Planning Policy Framework, and Ealing’s Local Plan and Development Management documents protect community open space. How does this proposal do this?
3. The loss of visual openness, privacy and green open space are regarded as constituting significant harm in planning terms, and the ownership of Community Open Space is irrelevant to the consideration of the scale of the harm caused? Why doesn’t the report explain this?
4. The GLA has objected to this application as that it goes against the London Plan. What steps you have taken to address the GLA’s concerns?
Playing Fields
5. Doesn’t it matter there will be a net loss of playing fields in Ealing? Sport England says that it does.
6. How does the loss of playing fields fit with the Council’s Playing Pitch Strategy? This says there is already
an under-provision of playing fields available in Ealing.
7. How much extra traffic will be generated because the loss of the playing fields would mean all outdoor sports lessons will now have to be in Hounslow, 3 miles away?
8. 80% of the site will be covered by buildings, hard-landscaping or astroturf. Won’t this harm biodiversity?
Educational Need
9. Isn’t it the case that Durston House is currently under-subscribed and that as a fee paying school, it is impossible to predict their future pupil numbers?
10. The school facilities are currently rated excellent by the Independent School Inspectorate. What need or requirement of the inspectorate is the new school designed to address?
11. How can the school’s capacity increase while not raising staff numbers according to the application? How will this affect the quality of the education?
12. There are many private schools in the area and insufficient state schools. Shouldn’t any new provision aim to address that?
Traffic and Parking
13. How will the school mitigate the additional traffic on Carlton Road and neighbouring roads at pick up and drop off times? What steps has it taken to reduce car traffic in recent years?
14. Why does the new design include no space for the children to board coaches every day to travel to Hounslow on site? Isn’t it more dangerous & cause congestion on a busy road.
15. The school will have to provide 630 meals per day. What will this mean for deliveries, waste and recycling?
Contributions
16. Why is the Council receiving such little to contribute to mitigating the harmful impacts of this scheme? 17. Whyisnoaffordablehousingprovidedwhenthepolicyrequirementisthatitmustbe?

TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE
REF: 191182FUL: KEY QUESTIONS TO ASK THE PLANNING OFFICER ON DURSTON

BREAKING: THREE MPS WRITE LETTER OPPOSING DURSTON HOUSE SCHOOL APPLICATION

Rupa Huq MP, Joy Morrisey MP (and Hanger Hill ward Cllr) and Alex Stafford MP (and Ealing Broadway ward Cllr) have comfirmed in writing their opposition to this application to Ealing Planning Committee.

It is really significant that 3 MPs from both main parties have joined together to oppose these plans. The Ealing Planning Committee must take their concerns seriously!

To support us in blocking this development the planning committee meeting is tomorrow evening at Atrium, Perceval House, 14-16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing, W5 2HL
Date and Time: Wednesday, 15 January 2020 at 19:00
Please come and let the committee know your feelings about preserving the only green playing fields left in this ward. Thank you

DURSTON SCHOOL PLANNING APPLICATION

Firstly I want to point out that very few people if any have read every document relating to this , there are possibly over 100 reports and documents at around 50 pages each. Not only do you have to read them , you have to remember every detail. This is like asking someone to pass a Geography degree in 1 hour , having never studied the subject. We are asking a planning officer & You to do the impossible – all you can do is be honest & listen.

There are many contentious planning applications, if it is on your doorstep that is the one most important to you. This is the one of the most important in the last 20 years. Why ? It’s like a football team, loosing a striker who bangs in 30 goals a season getting injured, is that worse than loosing your full back ? Why is this like that - because this is being done in the Centre of Ealing, the heart of the Borough. But I realize your Ward is the most important to you.

Fundamentally this is about 4 issues: Air Quality, The Environment, Traffic & Housing , but also money – the council want money but don’t have enough. You know any money coming in can be spent & lost very quickly & we will pass on to future generations a Borough worse one than we inherited. This is not a new school, it is a Private school & benefits few - if any.

1 We all care about Air Quality – If you look in detail even the planning officer says this will be more polluting than the Trees, Green Grass etc. that currently exists. Energy will be needed, the site has to be powered, all the classrooms, assembly hall, badminton courts , kitchen & catering facilities etc . They need heating & air conditioning. They will be as green as possible but they will pollute & not be as green as currently exists. How much it will pollute, no one knows exactly but it will pollute - so the Planning Officer has agreed a Section 106 payment compensation fee of around £135,000 to be spent by the council. Now we have a price to reduce the Air Quality of Ealing in perpetuity – it is £135,000. That works out 0.39 pence per person in Ealing. I think if we all agree - If it reduces Air Quality, even a tiny amount, it should not be allowed. If I offered you 39 pence to reduce your Air Quality would you accept it ?

2 We all want to Protect Green Space & the environment – the council declared a Climate Emergency. This removes at least 45 mature trees, 2,370 M2 of grassland, the only remaining meaningful Green Space in the centre of Ealing and all the outdoor sports facilities. The football pitches, all weather , basketball courts & tennis courts that ARE available for limited community use by local residents in the evenings & weekends, outside of school hours. This could be extended – once this is gone it is gone forever. The planning officer agrees this is damaging but says planning applications must be approved & so has negotiated a fee in compensation for the loss of 45 mature trees of £979 – works out at less than £22 per tree. This should not be allowed & certainly not at a compensation fee of £979

3 We all want less Traffic congestion & safer streets - The planning officer agrees this is massively damaging and so has requested a compensation to the borough of £103,000. That is 30p each, for worse traffic congestion & less safe streets. Sorry we do not worse Traffic congestion & less safe streets.

4 We all want more affordable housing. This provides none. This is the big one - it has asked for £1,000,000 pounds. Is that huge ? Individually yes but to the Borough – No – It works out at £2.94 the council can spend per resident of Ealing. To prove how little that is - A 3 bed flat behind where we are now in Dickens Yard is on the market for just under £1.5 million. So it buys two thirds of that flat.

President Trump believes Climate Change is exaggerated – This is President Trump on Steroids.
We have a Labour Council , this goes against Council Policies – You have just declared a climate emergency. But this goes beyond Politics , stand up for the 340,000 people of Ealing who will be damaged by , Worse Air Quality, Damaging the Environment & more Traffic congestion. That is what all the documents you have not had a chance to read says.
Your Labour MP’s are opposed, your Tory Councillors are opposed, The GLA have raised objections, Sports England are opposed.

But in Planning Terms can are you able to reject it ? If someone tells you No, that is not true – Similar applications by the school have been rejected & on appeal. All the reasons for rejecting still apply – but more so now.