Thursday 20 October 2022

Twyford Abbey development approved by Ealing Plannng Committee despite overwhelming opposition from residents, and from the nearby primary school, local councillors, the GLA and Rupa Huq MP

 

 

The recording of the Twyford Abbey development application representations and discussion at Ealing Planning Committee can be viewed above.  The application to develop on Metropolitan Open Land, currently in private hands, was approved despite overwhelming opposition from residents, and opposition from two ward councillors, the GLA and Rupa Haq MP.  It involves the loss of 157 mature trees and 7 acres of protected woodland.

 

Brent borders the site and some Brent residents registered objections. However, Brent Council was consulted and had no objections.The planning committee's  decision will now go to the GLA.

 


 Twyford Abbey and the South Lawn

 



The GLA had commented on strategic issues:

 

Land Use Principles
The proposal does not meet the exceptions of paragraph 149 of the NPPF and constitutes inappropriate development on MOL which is, by definition, harmful. A full public benefits package is required to determine whether ‘very special circumstances’ exist to outweigh the harm to MOL and any other harm. Confirmation is also required as to whether the loss of the extant school permission is considered acceptable in terms of being in a borough of identified
need, or other social infrastructure.


Urban Design/Heritage
The proposal would result in harm to the grade II listed Abbey, with a degree of harm to the walled garden and St Marys Church which will need to be weighed against the public benefits including those related to the restoration of the historic buildings. This exercise will be undertaken at Stage II referral once the additional information is provided (including views) and a full public benefits package is
available.


Other Matters
Also required are a London Plan (2021) compliant fire statement and consideration of pedestrian access to the North Circular as well as further information/revisions in relation to housing, affordable housing, transport and sustainable development.


Planning Officer Response: Noted, and all above matters will need to be discussed with the GLA during the Stage II process and are included in this report.

 

 These are the 'Very Special Circumstances' put forward in support of the application. 

 



Rupa Huq MP wrote:

 

I am writing to register my concerns with the above application in relation to the repurposing of Twyford Abbey for residential accommodation and formally object.

 

I was pleased to get a look at Twyford Abbey recently courtesy of the developer. Whilst I grew up locally this was the first time I’d seen the historic Abbey buildings and got behind the gates. The setting is hugely impressive and I agree that something better should be done with it other than lying dormant.

 

However, I am very concerned about the impact that such a monster development proposal will have, both on the site itself, and on local residents in surrounding streets. The provision of some 326 new homes on a relatively small site represents a very dense development of unnecessary height including seven new blocks of flats, along with a terrace and other stand- alone homes, represents a significant increase in the built footprint of this primarily greenfield site.

 

This proposal is completely incompatible with the nature of the site and the surrounding two storey residential roads; and will adversely affect the outlook of existing homes and longstanding residents on Iveagh Avenue and Brentmead Gardens forever. Significantly this is also metropolitan open land i.e. quasi green belt. Under the London Plan, metropolitan open land is afforded the same status and protection as green belt and is expected to be protected from inappropriate development.

 

Current government policy dictates that nature should be left in a better state at the end of development processes than at the start and that we should be aware of carbon footprint. It is not clear to me that this is proven here when the application proposes the removal of some 100 mature trees, including trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order – at a time when people talk of offsetting by planting trees to contribute to the urban ecosystem. As well as an immediate loss of habitat and biodiversity locally, the value of the trees in offsetting air pollution from the adjacent A406 dual carriageway is significant to local residents. Furthermore, the loss of the trees as part of the outlook from existing properties would represent a loss of amenity for local residents.

 

Existing residents here anyway feel stuck in a no man’s land between Brent and Ealing with e.g. no doctor’s surgery. Such a substantial residential development and concomitant population growth in this area will place local services – which are generally limited in this area – under significant strain. There is insufficient parking proposed which I foresee difficulties with.

 

Some elements of the proposal are indeed eye-catching. I agree that the grounds should be opened up and the Abbey deserves better than to rot away. However, the explanation I sought on my site visit of balancing resident privacy requirements of what are being presented as exclusive residences and allowing the public to roam the green spaces is not clear in my mind. My worry is this will ultimately be a gated community. The proposed provision of barely one-third of units as genuinely affordable housing will mean that this development does little to assist with the affordable housing shortage in Ealing, and falls below the expectations of genuinely affordable housing provision of both Ealing Council and the Mayor.

 

Whilst obviously the developer is sensing pound signs in their eyes, I feel that there are better uses for this great site. I understand that there is for example extant planning permission in perpetuity for a school. This - with the public able to use the greenspace of the grounds at weekends - feels a more acceptable solution. There is precedent for this in Ealing e.g. with the very successful Ada Lovelace school. I know of at least one local independent school which is seeking to expand and there may be others.

 

In conclusion, while I feel there is a better use for Twyford Abbey than lying dormant I remain unconvinced that this proposal represents the best possible long-term, sustainable and sensitive solution for the future of the Twyford Abbey site that would safeguard the heritage and biodiversity of the site and provide real benefits to the Abbey’s neighbours.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Dr Rupa Huq
Member of Parliament for Ealing Central and Acton

 

 

5 comments:

Philip Grant said...

The Mayor of London must overturn the Ealing Council decision, otherwise all Metropolitan Open Land, which is so important to the wellbeing of people and wildlife, is at risk of being lost to development.

David Walton said...

And add to what Phillip says all Public Open Space commons unfortunate enough to be located inside de-regulated population Growth Area zones, for example........

Brent Master Developer (see WM) is finally October 2022 making its grab to build on the South Kilburn Public Open Space, specifically its woodland area (looking absolutely stunning this Autumn) and also on the entire public open space, playgrounds and public square commons located between Dickens House and Austen House towers. All of this parkland flood defence amenity has been in daily 24/7 public use for 50 years.

This Brent special operation to build on what is Brent Kilburn's only park scale park is a test of whether any commons can survive being located inside a Growth Area zoning, where local and national and policies are abandoned for Growth, Growth, Growth red-line zoned. South Kilburn's population is to be grown from 6000 in year 2000 to 30,000 plus by 2041.

If a housing developer planning application to build on this parkland in 1999 was Brent rejected and declared "not in the public interest" by the then leader of Brent Council in 1999, how can building on this same park suddenly make sense in mega growth, car-free new South Kilburn of 2022?

The "if you're comfortable, you're not growing" Silicon Valley mantra seems to be Brent being taken to free-market fundamentalist extremes in South Kilburn's public land use management 2022 or should that be emergency fire sale 2022.

David Walton said...


Thinking London Plan policy G4. I really like this CABE quote (see below). Ongoing pandemic doesn't seem to have raised the asset price from £1 yet for Brents parks and yes 50-year-old South Kilburn Public Open Space Park does have all the contents this quote lists......

"It may come as a shock to learn that most councils value public parks at just £1 each. Even the most spectacular, well located, with beautiful mature trees, well established shrubs, paths benches, is usually valued on a councils list of assets as just £1."

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, Making the Invisible Visible: The Real Value of Park Assets

Anonymous said...

I thought Ealing Council we’re better than this - shame on those who voted this through. Seems to go completely against their CLIMATE AND ECOLOGICAL EMERGENCY STRATEGY: https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/15879/climate_and_ecological_emergency_strategy_2021-2030.pdf on page 60 it says…

“12. LEARNING WITH NATURE
WHY THIS MATTERS
This theme recognises the importance of protecting and expanding the spaces and structures which will capture and store some of the borough’s carbon emissions as well as supporting other themes to reduce the borough’s carbon footprint.
The pandemic of 2020 has avowed the importance of our greenspaces for mental health and well-being and that they are places which should be treasured and protected. The trees, hedgerows, parks, rivers, ponds fields and gardens in Ealing all have a vital role to play in storing carbon and combatting climate change. Equally importantly is for the borough to retain a diversity of habitats which are connected to each other.
This theme seeks to increase the amount of greenery in the borough through further development of carbon sequestration habitats including the number of trees and area of meadows and commits the council to maintaining these spaces using electric plant, vehicles and tools. Additionally, to achieve our goals it will be essential to include green infrastructure within developments which will capture carbon, prevent flooding, improve the water quality and increase diversity of plant and animal life in the borough.
The objectives set out in this theme will work alongside the borough’s Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) which is the borough’s strategic framework and road map for improving its biodiversity including all plant and animal life. In the same way that the climate emergency and the ecological emergency are intrinsically linked this strategy and the council’s BAP are linked and achievement of the goals in one strategy will facilitate the achievement of goals in the other. The BAP will be published in spring 2021 and is a five-year plan.
VISION
We are continuing to reshape and modernise our approach to the management and maintenance of our green space network to maximise carbon capture, enhance the wildlife value, provide flood resilience and ensure these spaces are equipped to sustainably meet the needs and aspirations of our communities.
CO-BENEFITS
Increased mental health and wellbeing of residents Improved air quality
• Urban cooling and adapting to extreme heat events
• Education and access to nature
• Increase biodiversity and connections for wildlife
• Increased community engagement amongst residents, reducing loneliness
• Increased property values – town centres and residential
• Reduction in noise pollution
• Reduce risk of flooding”

Anonymous said...

And on page 62..
“NATURE OBJECTIVE 1. Increase in tree canopy cover across Ealing by 2030
NATURE TARGETS
N1.1. Maintain and increase tree canopy cover to from 16.9% to 23% by 2030, achieving a 35% increase in canopy cover across Ealing
N1.2. Increase planting in parks, open spaces and on housing estates: 40,000 trees in total, including woodland BAP targets - 1ha woodland, 1ha orchard, 1.5km hedgerow, by 2026
OBJECTIVE 2. Manage green spaces to increase biodiversity, increase natural carbon capture and reduce carbon emissions
NATURE TARGETS
N2.1. 100% of the council’s maintenance equipment to have zero carbon output by 2025. Baseline: 60% of equipment is currently has zero carbon output.
N2.2. All council green waste from council managed green spaces to be processed in Ealing by 2030
N2.3. 50% of the council’s parks and green space vehicles to electric/hybrid by 2026. Baseline: currently 29% of these vehicles are electric/hybrid
N2.4. Enhance the biodiversity and carbon sequestration potential of parks and open spaces by maintaining and improving best practice for habitat management and achieving targets to increase grassland, wetland and woodland habitats as laid out in the Biodiversity Action Plan 2021
OBJECTIVE 3. Utilise green infrastructure to capture carbon, mitigate surface water flooding and improve biodiversity and water quality
NATURE TARGETS
N3.1. All residential and commercial new builds and refurbishments to contribute to green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements from 2022.
N3.2. All paving in major developments must be permeable where technically feasible from 2021.
N3.3. To create new or expand existing standing water areas with community involvement with total surface area of at least 0.5 hectares by 2030.
N3.4. Flood alleviation/mitigation projects to create 10,000m3 of additional surface water storage by 2025.”