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.
