Appeal to London Assembly following Ealing Council's approval of Twyford Abbey application for bulding on Metropolitan Open Land

Ealing Planning Committee's approval of the development at Twyford Abbey is subject to referral to the GLA.  Local resident Kiran Rao has written to Green Assembly Member, Sian Berry, in an individual capacity on behalf of West Twyford residents, setting out the case against the development.

 

Twyford Abbey in Ealing is perceived to have, ‘significant public heritage, environment and community benefits.’  This lens belies the truth that the benefits outweigh the harm, grossly misinterpreting Metropolitan Open Land policy and setting a dangerous precedent.   Ealing Council approved this development on the 19th October 2022  with the comment from the Ealing Planning Committee that GLA’s stage 1 decision did not factor in perceived ‘public benefits’.  In our climate emergency, we need to protect this land in order to be able to breathe cleaner air as part of our green recovery and wellbeing. 

 

The southern proposed open space is not desirable for the harm that will be inflicted to biodiversity net loss from TPO and MOL status as communicated by 255 objectors. Residents have access to 20 acres of parkland, lakes and garden within less than a 60 metre distance of this proposed development and several play areas throughout the West Twyford area. 

 

Other community ‘benefits’ proposed by the developer are limited access to an allotment, walled garden and orchard, but these so-called benefits are only a pavement away from an 8 lane motorway!  Growing food in a highly polluted area does not constitute healthy eating and active travel along the 8-6 lane motorway to the Hanger Lane gyratory, as proposed by the developer, does not constitute healthy active travel.  We do not have the active travel infrastructure nor can it be built in to make this a viable proposition. 

 

This is not some country idyll, this is a highly polluted industrial landscape, it is traffic saturated with significant health inequalities in our community.  The officer report notes that, “harm caused to metropolitan open land would be to the northern extent of the site which is flanked by the North Circular that does not perform well in respect of its functions as metropolitan open land and it is considered that the harm would be outweighed by the aforementioned significant public benefits” but it is exactly this area where the so called ‘amenity benefits’ will reside, from the walled garden to the allotments and we will lose two thirds of MOL land, critically on a flood plain.  We do not have assurance of the flood risk, as Thames Water have only agreed to this after lengthy negotiations and on principle.

 

Furthermore, there are significant concerns by a major stakeholder- the large primary school, adjacent to this development.  School Governors have objected on safety, health and education grounds, which is not reflected in the officers report.  This school cannot be transformed into a school street due to the topology of the area and traffic calming measures do not satisfy the school (there will be an increase in 100 parking spaces in the development and increased service demand).  We fear that it will take the death of a child either through a traffic related incident or via air pollution, for Ealing Council to take note of the harm caused for this generation and future generations to come.  The school currently has 431 pupils and includes a Children's Centre with facilities for pre-school care and nursery and reception/nursery aged pupils.  This is an area of deprivation with 28.4% of pupils on free school meals.  Current air pollution directly impacts pupils' health with significant spikes in asthma and respiratory conditions.  

 

There is a total misrepresentation of Green Belt/MOL policy and how it should be applied and there is a breach of biodiversity net gain.   

 

According to Directive 2011/92/EU Annex II, which forms part of The Town And Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, an EIA is required for 10. (b) Urban development projects, including the construction of shopping centres and car parks. The applicability threshold (ii) the development includes more than 150 dwellings is fulfilled.

 

The report and its conclusions are unbalanced and selective.  For example on (page 88 and following) Ealing Council mentions the National Planning Policy Framework 2021 but does not consider chapter 15, namely conserving and enhancing the natural environment.  This selective approach to conveying and interpreting policy, is neither transparent nor fair.  

 

You cannot remove 157 mature protected trees and woodland and expect there to be biodiversity net gain in replacing established trees and woodland with saplings.  The £100K for tree planting is not proportionate to the scale of this development with no aftercare plan in place.  A high proportion of newly planted trees in our area die as the  Ealing’s tree department is under-resourced. 

There is a total misrepresentation of Green Belt/MOL policy and how it should be applied;

 

●      Policy G3A of the London Plan affords MOL the same planning status as the Green Belt. Policy G3A protects MOL from inappropriate development in accordance with the national planning policy tests that apply to the Green Belt. These tests are set out in the NPPF.

●      Policy 147 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

●      Policy 148 of the NPPF states that 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

●      Policy 149 of the NPPF states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. The policy identifies types of development that are exceptions to this policy. None of these exceptions apply here.

●      London Plan and NPPF policies do not appear to have been considered in the documents relating to this proposal

●      Concerned that the 'Assessment of Impact of Development Proposals on Metropolitan Open land' submitted to support the proposal does not test the development against these policies.

 

In relation to housing;

 

●      There are approximately 1850 new actual/proposed accommodation units around Lakeside Drive to 1849 around Hanger Lane Gyratory and other major developments; The Royal Waterside and Grand Union sites that have a bearing on local impact.

●      The proposal intends to deliver 110 affordable homes, which would allow for the delivery of 36% affordable units. London Plan Policies H4, H5 and the Mayor's Affordable Housing and Viability SPG seek to maximise the delivery of affordable housing with a strategic target of 50% across London. The threshold level of affordable housing on gross residential development is initially set at a minimum of 35%. This 'threshold approach' is sought by the applicant for one purpose only, i.e., to become eligible to follow the Fast-Track Route set out in the SPG, that will allow the applicant to not submit a viability assessment or be subject to a late stage viability review.

●      Ealing Council blames this failure on problems with migrating pipeline data into the GLA’s Planning London Datahub, which replaced the GLA’s London Development Database in 2020. Worse still, it is now using this excuse to apply the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development (see Twyford Abbey  planning application ref - 222378LBC and 222341FUL (Schedule Items 03 & 04 f2 of the officer’s report) due to be decided at Planning Committee on 19 October).

 

 We dispute the Council’s account of the reasons given in the officer’s report for Twyford Abbey for the lack of a 5-year housing land supply figure. See Planning Policies - Housing Land Supply.

 

The figures provided to the GLA’s Planning London Datahub originate from Ealing Council. If the Council has been aware of this data migration problem since 2020, why has it not taken steps to analyse its own data in the meantime as most other local authorities across the country have to do?

 

Indeed, why is it that by July 2021 (it may well be more now), 15 London boroughs, including the largest (Barnet) have been able to produce AMRs including 5-year housing land supply for 2019/20 when Ealing hasn’t?

 

When we enquired directly with the GLA on 28 September, we received by return an email from Peter Kemp, the Head of Change and Delivery, Planning saying that:’ You will be pleased to hear that the Datahub is now fully operational for Ealing, and as such any data that you are now looking for is now accessible, plus significant amounts more.’ 

 

Why is it that the Council, knowing the significance of the 5-year housing land supply, has not used the almost three weeks since the GLA’s confirmation to calculate that as a matter of urgency?  It seems to us that the Council’s withholding of a 5-year housing land supply figure betrays its own desire to collude with the developer in tipping the balance in favour of the development.

 

Finally, in terms of Air Quality (AQ) we consulted AQ experts at Imperial College London. 

 

●      In terms of air quality, the final sentence of the Detailed Air Quality Assessment report states, “The development has been assessed to exceed air quality neutral, but with the implementation of mitigation measures, this could be reduced.” LBE has committed to enforcing air quality neutral policy, therefore, by its own admission, the application should be rejected. I would not expect the phrase, “with the implementation of mitigation measures, this could be reduced” to be considered sufficiently strong to override this stated policy. Concrete measures to ensure it is air quality neutral should be enforced. I note that those mitigation measures proposed (encouragement of cycling, electrical charge points etc) may reduce impact, but it will not make it neutral. 

●      The application should not lead to further deterioration of existing poor air quality.  This does & is therefore in breach of The London Plan 2021 Policy SI1.

 

Our community was portrayed as not wanting change.  We do wish to see the restoration of Twyford Abbey but this needs to be done sympathetically with respect to the biodiversity and protections that exist and the typology of the area.  Ealing council need to be shown leadership to provide an alternative vision for this site, it could so easily be a genuine public asset.  This decision, if approved, will be devastating for this and future generations to come. 

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

 

 

Demonstration against Twyford Abbey (Hanger Lane) development at Ealing Council tomorrow night. Removal of 130 trees and loss of biodiversity. Nearby primary school objects.

The community around the Ealing and Brent borderlands around Twyford Abbey will be protesting from 6.15pm on Wednesday evening outside Ealing Council, the building next to Ealing Town Hall before the planning application to build on the site will be decided. The protesters are calling for the application to be rejected.  249 out of the 256 comments on Ealing Council's Planning Portal object to the application and include people from nearby Brent addresses.

Local resident Kiran Rao writes: 

 

Twyford Abbey ( NW10 7DP) in Hanger Lane has existed much as it has since the 11th century, when it was mentioned in the Domesday Book of 1086. There has been a church and manor house on the site since the 13th century.

It is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC), and a blanket Tree Preservation Order (TPO) covers the majority of trees onsite, including 7 acres of woodland. The site is also located within an Archaeological Interest Area, in relation to the potential for remains of a mediaeval moated manor house.

A development of 326 flats is proposed in close proximity to an 8 lane motorway, on a flood plain and in an area that is over populated, over developed and consistently exceeds acceptable pollution levels. This will see the removal of over 130 mature trees and loss of biodiversity. This is unacceptable in our climate emergency.

248 objections have been lodged. Ealing Council’s recommendation shows bias (providing selective reference and misinterpretation of policy) and does not reference an objection by a key stakeholder, the large primary school (objection here) who is adjacent to this development. The school objects on safety, health and education grounds, which will negatively impact this generation and future generations to come. We fear it won’t be long before we have another case of Ella Kissi Debrah. There are huge health inequalities in our area and no reference to the Council’s commitment to its Climate and Ecological Emergency Strategy or its air quality neutral policy (please refer to comment from 7 Park Close).

This isn’t just another planning application. This goes to the heart of what community is and how we need to strike a balance in urban environments in order to live sustainably in this climate emergency. We would like this historical gem to be in public ownership and used for public good. The council can realise this vision as there is section 106 money from other developments in our area and this would not further degrade this community.

 

The Governing Board of West Twyford Primary School have submitted this objection to the scheme:

 

As the Governing Body of West Twyford Primary School, we wish to register our objections to the proposed development of The Twyford Abbey site. These concerns are about the impact that it will have on the children attending the school both now, and in the future, and the impact on their education, health and quality of school experience.

We are particularly concerned about the increase in traffic that this development will bring and the attendant issues of noise, pollution and danger to children.

The development is considerable and will allow for 100 car parking spaces. This will mean a very significant increase in traffic on Twyford Abbey road. This road is already busy and is the only access road for the school. Even those walking, cycling or scooting need to use this road to enter and leave the school in the morning and evening. This increased traffic will present a much greater danger of an accident. Parents regularly complain about the dangers of traffic on the road and this development will make this situation worse. In particular one of the exits from the site is barely 1 meter from one of the school gates which children use to enter and exit the school. This represents an unacceptable danger of children and families being hit by cars.

The increased car usage will result in greater noise. West Twyford currently has the main road on the southern side but this development will add traffic to the western side too. When the school was rebuilt, it was moved away from the main road to both reduce noise and pollution. This development will put that back. In order to learn their best children require a calm environment. Noise can distract, disturb and negatively impact on stress and mental health. This will put them at risk. Currently 38% of the school is identified as disadvantaged children (they are eligible for the pupil premium grant). These children often live in small, cramped accommodation. Many of them live near the North Circular Road or Hanger Lane Gyratory. West Twyford is an oasis of calm and peace. Our children already have many stresses and strains in their lives which impact their health and life chances: we as the governors do not think these should be added too by this development. 

Pollution is another major concern, as noted the cars will exit right next to our children entering and exiting the school, which will dramatically increase the pollution levels both from exhaust fumes and tyres. There is very clear evidence of the negative effect of air pollution on young children and we are also concerned about the reduction in trees and how this will affect this. The gate next to the entrance is used mainly by young children from years 1,2 and 3. They are still growing and developing, and would be negatively impacted by increased pollution.

We think that 100 parking spaces for 326 dwellings is insufficient. In discussion with the developers, they stated that car use is declining London. In our view this is naïve and anyone living next to such main roads will want a car; some dwellings may well want two or more and we are concerned about the effect of cars being parked in the local area, which would mean a greater number than the allowed for 100 cars. We understand that this already happens in other developments nearby. Once the site is completed there will be nothing that we can do about this potentially very large increase in the number of cars in the area and the increase in traffic. However, it will affect the children of West Twyford for generations to come. We understand that many of our school community are very concerned about this and this is a concern that we share and take very seriously.

We also object to the placing of an electric substation adjacent to the schools grounds. This appears on the plans next to the northern boundary. Substations can be noisy and it is concerning to have one sited so close to where the children will play. 

 

In conclusion we have reviewed the plans carefully and spoken to the developers. In our considered opinion this development will have an unduly negative impact on the school and its children. We foresee an unacceptable increase in noise, pollution and traffic. We consider this development to be overambitious in the number of new dwellings and to have inadequately dealt with the traffic restrictions imposed by the location. For these reasons we object to the proposed development.

 

Ealing Green Party Chair, Neil Reynolds  said:

If the Twyford Abbey development is approved by the planning committee, it will be further evidence that Ealing Council puts the needs of developers before nature and local residents. 

The site has significant ecological value with over 200 trees  that have protection orders on them. The feelings of residents are also quite clear with a huge number of objections. The simple truth is you can't claim that planting new saplings, many of which die, is an adequate replacement for very mature trees that clean Ealing's air and are valuable carbon absorbers in a climate emergency. 

The council promised to regrow and rewild at the last election, if they approve this development it will show how shallow that slogan is. I really hope they see sense.