Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

172789VAR | Application for a Minor Material amendment (S73a) to vary conditions 1(b), 2 and 3 pursuant to outline planning permission ref: 165410 dated 06/12/2016 (a variation of the outline planning permission ref: PP/2013/3938 dated 17/07/2014 and varied by minor material amendment application ref: PP/2014/5491 dated 05/02/2015) for the redevelopment of the site (following demolition of existing buildings except for retained cinema facade) to provide multi-screen cinema, mixed commercial floor space, between 143 and 161 residential units (Class C3) in buildings of between 5 and 7 storeys in height. Creation of public realm including outdoor performance space. Change of use of unit to the rear of No.49 New Broadway to bicycle store and change of use of unit to the rear of rear of No.55 New Broadway to management office suite. Alterations to and creation of new vehicular and pedestrian access routes. Associated servicing areas and disabled car parking spaces. (Outline Planning Application for layout and access). Minor amendments altering the approved mixed commercial floorspace from between 4,509sqm and 4934sqm to up to 3,358sqm; residential units from between 143 and 161 to up to 209 residential units; and the massing/storey heights from between 5 and 7 to between 6 and 9 storeys (noting that one commercial storey has been converted to two residential storeys in two buildings, by lifting the height by circa 1.5 metres) with the cinema layout remaining as approved but with the floorspace areas updated to include the approved mezzanines (total of 3,114sqm) | Ealing Filmworks Former Empire Cinema Nos. 59-63 New Broadway Ealing London W5 5AH
  • Total Consulted: 0
  • Comments Received: 10
  • Objections: 10
  • Supporting: 0
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All

Ms Jo Winters Ealing Civic Society 28 Ranelagh Road Ealing LONDON W5 5RJ (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 30 Jul 2017

Ealing Civic Society has the following objections to the proposed changes to the earlier consented scheme (2013/3938):
- the proposed increase in building heights in particular to Building A which would impact upon the setting of the Grade II listed Town Hall immediately opposite the site and Building D which would further impact upon the setting of the Grade I listed Pitzhanger Manor;
- the proposed increase in the number of flats by 30% whilst the number of "affordable" units would only increase by 25% giving rise to only 17% of the total number
- the proposed two-storey residential block fronting Barnes Pikle would have a very poor outlook onto the flank wall of the adjacent commercial premises.

In relation to the original consented scheme, we continue to regret the loss of the YMCA building in Bond Street which we would have preferred to have been retained within the scheme and we would also encourage the more meaningful incorporation into the scheme of the former Walpole Picture Theatre arch. Overall, our view is that it would be better to implement the original consented scheme and to do it quickly rather than to give consent to the revised scheme with the increased detrimental impact upon the conservation areas that would be entailed.

We agree with the constructive comments submitted by the Cinema Theatre Association and stand ready to assist with proposals to improve the setting and landscaping associated with the Walpole Picture Theatre arch and reuse of the salvaged fixtures (in particular light fittings) from the old cinema.

We note that no particular use has been considered for the proposed small gallery space in the south-west corner of the site. We would suggest that consideration be given to using this space to mount an exhibition about the history of Ealing Studios which has long been mooted but never delivered as part of the redevelopment of the Studios themselves and of the former cinemas on the site (i.e. the Forum Cinema and the Walpole Picture Theatre). This would need to be funded through a section 106 contribution from the developers, St George.

Finally, we do not consider that these amendments are sufficiently minor to be determined by officers and request that the application be considered by full Planning Committee.

Mrs Ann Chapman Chair, Walpole Residents' Association 15 Lammas Park Road Ealing London W5 5JD (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 25 Jul 2017

Walpole Residents' Association objects to this 'minor material amendment' application. Firstly, on the basis that it should never have been validated by the planning authority as it is NOT a minor material amendment. There are proposed increases to the height and bulk of the development and a significant increase in the proposed numbers of flats. On specific areas of objection, we would list:
- the increased height of building D facing Mattock Lane, which is now even more dominant over the listed Pitzhanger Manor. (Note we do not oppose the removal of commercial premises in this block and consider the change to residential use at ground floor level to be an improvement.)
- the increased height of building A above the cinema facade which represents over-development
- the proposed residential units fronting on to Barnes Pikle. These will have unacceptable living conditions, overlooking, as they will, a flank wall to a commercial building and the flank wall and yard of a restaurant and shisha bar which pollute the Pikle with fumes from the shisha and restaurant vent outlet
This application appears to be merely an attempt to increase residential development on this site for financial gain with no consideration of any benefit to Ealing. Delivery of a replacement cinema is important for many Ealing residents, but equally or as important is achieving the best development on this site, even if this takes a little longer. This application should be refused and the current applicants should either demonstrate their commitment to Ealing by delivering the cinema in line with the already approved proposals or proposed amendments which are a marked improvement to those already approved plans.

Ms Kay Garmeson 49a Northfield Road London W13 9SY (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 05 Jul 2017

49a Northfield Road
W13 9SY

Planning Services
London Borough of Ealing
Perceval House
14-16 Uxbridge Road
W5 2HL 5th July 2017

Dear Simon

Re: Ealing Filmworks, Former Empire Cinema Site, 59-63 New Broadway, Ealing W5 5AH (planning application references: 172807REM; 172789VAR; 173269CND)

I am writing to object most strongly to these applications.

In the first instance I believe that the proposed changes, namely:

- the increase in the number of residential units by 30% from 161 to 209
- the consequent increase in the height and massing of the development
- the change in use from commercial to residential on both Barnes Pikle and Mattock Lane

cannot legitimately be described as 'minor material amendments' and that these applications should therefore be rejected for that reason alone.

I also object on the following specific grounds.

- The increased height and massing, which is entirely attributable to St George trying to cram as many flats as possible on to what has been a solely commercial site for as long as I remember, is completely out of keeping with the other buildings that surround the site. In particular, Building D fronting Mattock Lane is excessively overbearing in its context of the Ealing Green Conservation Area and opposite the Grade I listed Pitzhanger Manor.
- St George describes Walpole House on Bond Street as a 'fairly indistinctive 80's structure' to justify its demolition. However, the replacement design is similarly bland and characterless, and would contribute still less to the street scape as it would also replace the locally listed and characterful YMCA building, which is part of the Conservation Area.
- The change of use from commercial to residential on Barnes Pikle and Mattock Lane:
o The two-storey residential block should not replace commercial space on Barnes Pikle. Not only would these units be physically too close to a public right of way, but they would also be facing a blank wall behind which are the backyards of commercial premises.
o The ground- and first-floor residential units on Mattock Lane appear to follow the same building line as the commercial units they replace. This would place them too close to the adjacent right of way. They should not be approved without being pulled back to match the building line of the adjacent residential property.
- Barnes Pikle appears as part of the site on the plans. This is a public right of way. As such it should not form part of the site, and the division between this and the adjacent disable parking spaces must be physically separated.

I believe that the scope of the changes in relation to the type of application, and the individual changes outlined above justify refusal of the present applications.

Yours sincerely

Kay Garmeson

Mr John Reid 4 Queen Anne's Grove Ealing W5 3XR (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 05 Jul 2017

I have been an Ealing resident for the last 40 years
Why is there need for MORE catering outlets. The existing restaurants and bars seem not to be over successful and there are others already planned.
The additional height on top of the old cinema site is unsightly and will destroy the building line on the Uxbridge Road.
As will the overall development destroy the view north from Ealing Green.
The frontage on Matock Lane is completely out of keeping with the area. There are other developments in ealing that match the environment they are in. Why separate Mattock Lane for "special" treatment.
The changes to Bond Street are also out of keeping with the area. There are 3 carbuncles in this development. The additional space above the original Cinema site, the Mattock Lane frontage and the destruction of Bond Street.
Ealing used to be known as "The Queen of the Suburbs"; while that is in the past this development's carbuncles create a mistaken view of the future. I understand the motivation for this development is to replace the original cinema, but at such a cost to Ealing's environment is unacceptable. What was wrong with the original plan......
Is St George able to dictate to the council....


Comment submitted date: Tue 04 Jul 2017

Dear Sir/Madam,

I would like to raise my concerns regarding the above planning permission adjustment, which I noticed displayed on a lamp post near Walpole Park.
Although it was signposted as a minor amendment, I feel that the change to the design by increasing the height of the building by several stories is not a minor change. For many years Ealing has been promised a reinstated cinema and the arts hub seemed an exciting prospect. However the housing aspect of the site has become more and more the dominant feature. The design now appears to be a housing complex, with a bit of an arts hub thrown in, rather than the other way around. To change the layout of the building by several stories makes this the case even more so.
Adding several more stories to the building feels like over development of the site. To change the residential units from a minimum of 143 to up to potentially 209 is going to substantially increase the number of people needing to be in and around the area. If we imagine that each residential unit may house 2 people, that means there could be around 400 or more home owners needing access/exit from the area, completely separate to the people visiting for arts/restaurant purposes. If the arts hub is a success, which we hope it will be, it's going to be very overcrowded. The area was meant to be somewhere for people to enjoy, for leisure, not an endurance test through crowds. Adding the extra housing - possibly 66 more residential units - jeopardises this by making the area busier.
Another concern is the increase in prevalence of this style of building in and around the site. Dickens Yard already provides a substantial amount of similar apartment style housing. As well as becoming a dominant feature architecturally the substantial heights of these buildings adversely overshadow neighbouring historic buildings. It is only now it is built that the height of Dicken's Yard for example, is seen to dwarf the view of the neighbouring Christ the Saviour church. I wouldn't like the Filmworks complex to have a similar affect on the Pitzhanger Manor refurbishment. For all these reasons, I very much hope that the application to increase the height and housing capacity of this project will not be allowed.

Mr john sears 18 mattock lane london w5 5bg (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 04 Jul 2017

The building facing Pitzhanger Manor has been increased in height and this is unacceptable. The building will overshadow the only Grade 1 listed building in Ealing and is totally out of character. The building has an architectural brutalism appearance. The upper floors should be set back from the third floor in an attempt to give the appearance of building that is lower. This aspect has no beneficial architectural character and I strongly object.

Mr Colin Bradbury 56 Castlebar Road London W5 2DD (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 01 Jul 2017

This application is an attempt to build yet more residential units, not affordable, when there is a desparate need for affordable homes. What appeared at first to be building a public amenity now appears to be providing the minimum amenity and commercial space at the expense of more profitable flats. After the Dickens Yard development and the attempt to over develop the Arcadia site,this is the last thing Ealing needs. Replacing the cinema is no excuse for taking the life out of Ealing's centre.

Mr Patrick Chapman, EG&C Conservation Areas 15 Lammas Park Road Ealing London W5 5JD (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 23 Jun 2017

The Ealing Green and Ealing Town Centre Conservation Areas Advisory Panel Objects to this application which envisages a 25% increase in the number of flats - this should not have been validated as it cannot be considered as a minor variation. In detail, the change to the roofline will have a material negative impact on the Conservation Area. Also the increase of flats will have a material impact on the vehicular servicing needs, which has not been considered in the application. Refuse collections will need to increase; access for refurbishing and removals has not been adequately addressed. The (larger) exterior finishing is not acceptable for this central sensitive location. Overall, this material change in the application has changed it out of all proportion to the original approved application.

Mr Martin Lau 29 Victoria Court London W3 9AH (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 22 Jun 2017

Even before these latest amendments, this project is yet another example of short-term thinking destroying the character of Ealing, which has happened rapidly over the last few years. Change is inevitable, but what is replacing the old (but not unwanted in the case of the YMCA) is utterly generic "luxury" apartments and bland chain stores/restaurants designed to make a quick profit.

Bond Street is one of the least "Croydon-ised" parts left in the town centre, and I am shocked at what is proposed. Moreover, consider that the designers of the original cinema understood the need for it to have a monumental quality, which underscores how that art deco frontage could become, under these plans, a monument to crass commercialism, a mere decorative backdrop to getting an overpriced coffee while the actual cinema entrance is hidden away - that really shows where the developers' priorities lie.

I grew up in the borough and decided to stay as an adult despite the greater expense compared to other parts of London because of my love for the area. But really, with all the misguided development that has happened in recent years, the appeal has diminished greatly - if I want to live in a characterless, culture-free suburban town then I can swap out for a cheaper option.

Ms Teresa Freestone 33C Windsor Road Ealing W5 3UL (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 22 Jun 2017

It would be a real shame to lose the old YMCA building. Could this not be made into an entrance for the cinema?

Also the amount of so-called affordable housing is too low. It is unlikely that those paying full price for the other flats will be living there, they will probably let the flats out, creating a transient community. We've got too much of that as it is with surrounding private rental.

an Idox solution