PRE-INQUIRY MEETING

14.00; 27 APRIL 2009

THE QUEEN’S HALL, THE TOWN HALL,

NEW BROADWAY, EALING

1. Introduction

The meeting opened at 14.00. David Richards introduced himself as the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to hold an inquiry into the planning application by Glenkerrin (UK) Ltd at The Arcadia Centre, Ealing and to report to her with conclusions and recommendations.

2. Preliminaries

Those present were asked to complete an attendance list, indication whether they would like to be sent a copy of the Notes of the Meeting.

3. Scope of Inquiry

The application is made by Glenkerrin (UK) Ltd

Application Ref: P/2007/4246

Inspectorate Ref: APP/A5270/V/09/2097739

Arcadia Centre, 9 - 29 & 36 - 42 The Broadway, 1 – 10 Central Chambers 1 – 4 Haven Place, Springbridge Road inc railway land, London W5 2ND

The application has been called in by Secretary of State for the decision to be taken by herself.

Description of development:

Demolition of existing buildings and erection of 7 buildings Block A North – 2/6/7 storeys, A South – 1/2/4/6/8 storey with basement, B 2/5/7/8 storey, C - 3/5/11 storey, D – 2/3/9/10/11/12 storey, E-2/3/9/10/11/12 storey and F 19/25/26 storeys containing approximately 17,279 square metres of retail shops (Use Class A1), 1,363 square metres of cafes/restaurants (A3), 490 square metres of offices (B1(a)), 1,861 square metres of leisure facilities (D2) and 567 residential units, provision of two basement floors containing 352 car parking spaces (of which 230 are for the residential element including 16 spaces for the car club and 60 disabled spaces and 122 for the retail and commercial uses including including 7 disabled spaces), parking for 631 cycles (567 for the residential use and 64 for the retail and commercial uses), servicing area and plant and equipment with vehicular access off Springbridge Road, pedestrian accesses off Springbridge Road, Haven Green and the Broadway, landscaping, formation of areas of public realm, amenity space for the residential uses and ancillary works.

The application was reported to LB Ealing Planning Committee on 17 December 2008 where it was resolved to grant planning permission subject to conditions, an agreement under S 106 of the TCPA and referral to Mayor of London and GO London.

Objector’s representatives sought clarity as to exactly which scheme was under consideration, as there had been a number of changes. Mr Winter for the Appellant confirmed that it was the scheme considered by Ealing’s Planning Committee on 17 December with Plans dated November 2008. LB Ealing undertook to review the website documentation and plans to make this clear. There would be no further changes to the scheme.

Mr Winter confirmed that while there may be additional matters to be addressed through the S106 Agreement and conditions, these would not change the nature of the scheme.

4. Purpose of meeting

The aim of the meeting was to help make the best use of our time both at the inquiry itself and in the period running up to its opening.

The meeting dealt with procedural matters arising from the information on file. It was stressed that there would be no discussion at all of the merits of any of the cases, either in support or objection at this meeting.

5. Parties present, and appearances at Inquiry

REP AT PIM	REP AT INQ
Glenkerrin (UK) Ltd
Mr Paul Winter (Eversheds)	Russell Harris QC, Landmark Chambers
Council for LB Ealing
Morag Ellis QC, 2 – 3 Grays Inn Square instructed by Mr J Umrigar, Director of Legal and Democratic Services	Morag Ellis QC
Rule 6 Parties
Ealing Civic Society
Robert Gurd, Chairman Julie Harris, Secretary	To be considered
Save Ealing’s Centre Association
Will French, Chairman James Guest	To be considered
Conservation Area Advisory Panels
Corrinne Templer, Secretary	To be considered

The following interested parties who were present indicated their wish to speak at the Inquiry:

Julian Edmonds	Central Ealing Residents Association
Anthony Elley
Anthony Lewis
Cllr John Ball

It was noted that there were likely to be numerous others wishing to speak at the Inquiry, who had not been invited to the PIM. Anyone wishing to speak should attend on the first day if possible and give notice that they wish to be heard. Arrangements can then be made for a suitable date and time.

Mrs Templer circulated copies of the Rule 6 Statement for the Conservation Area Advisory Committees which were sent to PINS on Friday 24 April 2009.

Following the meeting I asked for a note to be circulated indicating that the Planning Inspectorate would continue to accept third party representations sent in until the start of the Inquiry, as the application has been called-in by the Secretary of State for her determination.

6. Inquiry dates and times

The inquiry will open at 10.00 on Tuesday 23 June 2009. The inquiry will be held at the Town Hall, New Broadway, Ealing, London W5 2 BY. The first week of the Inquiry would take place in the Victoria Hall. In the second and subsequent week (if needed) the Inquiry would move to the Queen’s Hall (in the same building). Further details will follow in due course as to accommodation for the participants, car parking arrangements and refreshments.

The current estimate is that the inquiry will run for 12 days. The parties considered that this was likely to be sufficient. Mr Winter said that the Appellant’s representatives would contact others, including Rule 6 parties, in an effort to establish common ground. Preliminary contact would be made after the close of this meeting. The point of contact for the Appellant would be Fred Drabble.

Details may change during the course of the inquiry, but variations will be made with as much notice as possible and, desirably, to inconvenience as few participants as possible.

7. Points for examination at the inquiry:

The letter of notification sent out by LB Ealing on 23 March 2009 sets out he following matters on which the Secretary of State wishes to be informed. Based on that and the parties’ statements my view of the matters to be addressed is as follows:

1. The extent to which the proposed development is consistent with the Government’s polices in PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development. In particular, whether the design principles in relation to the site and its wider context, including the layout, height and massing, scale, open space, visual appearance and landscaping are appropriate in their context and take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area and the way it functions;

2. The extent to which the proposal is consistent with her policies in PPS 3: Housing to meet the housing requirements of the whole community (including those in need of affordable housing), widen housing opportunity and create mixed communities.

3. The extent to which the application in and adjacent to a conservation area and nearby listed buildings accords with national policy as set out in PPS 15: Planning and the Historic Environment. In particular regard to the consideration of the preservation or enhancement of the character and appearance of conservation areas.

4. Whether the proposed development accords with relevant provisions of the saved policies within the LB Ealing’s adopted UDP.

5. Whether the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the London Plan – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London consolidated with alterations since 2004 (February 2008).

6. Whether any permission should be subject to conditions, and if so what form it should take

The cumulative effect of the scheme with other proposals e.g. Dickens Yard, Crossrail and Haven Green Bus Interchange is a matter which can be considered.

The above list is not exhaustive and it does not preclude other matters being raised if relevant.

Particular attention should be paid to these matters, and to the scope for mitigating any harm, in the presentation of evidence.

Miss Ellis requested on behalf of the Council that if anyone wished to use any form of special equipment for presentations then advance notice should be given. The contact would be Matthew Hall.

8. Scope of the Evidence/Witnesses

At present it is expected that the following witnesses will be called to give evidence, though the lists are provisional. There is scope for further agreement to be reached on matters of common ground which may reduce Inquiry time. However, I emphasised that these should not involve any changes to the scheme. Rule 6 Parties and others have yet to consider whether it will be possible to present cases jointly, where there are overlapping matters of interest. I consider this would be helpful to avoid repetitive evidence and questioning.

Participant	Subject	Witness
Glenkerrin (UK) Ltd (4 witnesses)	Planning witness – policy Architect – Design Conservation witness Highways witness	Names to be confirmed
LB Ealing (3 witnesses)	Planning Policy Development Control Regeneration	Names to be confirmed

Rule 6 Parties and others are asked to consider how far they might be able to present cases jointly, particularly as regards key matters of design and effects on the character and appearance of conservation areas, and the setting of buildings. It was agreed that there is scope for more than one person to speak on behalf of each organisation, where individual members of an organisation might have specialist knowledge of a particular subject.

It is likely there would be a round table session for s106 undertakings and planning conditions.

9. Estimates of time

The Inquiry is currently scheduled to run for 3 weeks 23 June – 10 July 2009 a total of 12 sitting days.

This may be an over-estimate and progress on drawing up proofs and statements of common ground may abbreviate the length of the inquiry.

The Inquiry will sit 10.00 – 17.00 Tuesdays – Thursdays and 09.30-14.00 on Fridays.

Estimates of time are necessarily tentative. It is likely that the majority of the first week would be taken up with the presentation of the Appellant’s and Council’s cases. This is to a large degree dependent on the extent of questions to be put to witnesses, and it is important that parties adopt a co-ordinated approach to questioning of expert witnesses. I will almost certainly have questions of my own.

Evidence will largely be taken as read, though I have asked that witnesses be introduced in chief, to set out the key points of the cases.

I will keep a close eye on the timetable during the Inquiry. It should be possible to hear the cases of Rule 6 parties and individuals during the second week. The third week is available if needed. It is emphasised though, that the programme is subject to change. Anyone who is unable to attend the Inquiry on each day should keep in touch with the Council to be aware of any changes to the programme.

Appearances by interested parties wishing to speak will be taken when the Inquiry starts, and appropriate arrangements made. The timetable will be reviewed as the Inquiry progresses.

10. Order of Play

As this is a call-in case and the proposal is actively supported by the LB Ealing, it makes sense to hear the Appellant’s witnesses first, followed by the Council’s witnesses, and then to hear the cases for objectors, starting with Rule 6 parties.

At present I would expect opening statements from:

Glenkerrin (UK)

LB Ealing

3 Rule 6 parties. (This is not a requirement, but the opportunity is there of making a brief statement, if the parties wish to take up).

Evidence will generally be heard in the order I have outlined, but may be varied by agreement if considered expedient.

11. Site visit

I will familiarise myself with the area around the appeal site prior to the inquiry (on an unaccompanied basis), and may make further such visits during or after the inquiry. I will also, in the usual way, make accompanied visits to relevant places during or after the inquiry. Arrangements for such visits will be made later. I requested that a list of viewpoints is prepared. I will discuss later what needs to be accompanied, and what I can do on an unaccompanied basis.

All visits will be for the sole purpose of observing the sites in question. We will not hear any evidence or submissions on site. It is important that all that has to be said in evidence should be given at the inquiry itself.

12. Environmental Statements

These are being examined for adequacy. The Appellant’s view is that no further information needs to be provided. The Council confirmed that the ES had been advertised correctly. Any additional information would need to be advertised in accordance with the regulations.

13. Submission of proofs

Proofs of evidence should be submitted 4 weeks before the start of the Inquiry i.e. on 26 May 2009

Proofs should focus on the matters at issue and should aim for brevity and concision, consistent with a proper explanation of the case. In accordance with the Inquiry Procedure Rules, if the proofs are longer than 1500 words, summaries of the proofs must be submitted at the same time as the proofs themselves. Summaries should be no more than 1500 words or, at maximum, 10% of length of the main proof.

In addition to copies for their own purposes, the Appellant and Council will need to supply 2 copies of the proofs for PINS, to include one for the Inspector and for an unmarked set to be forwarded to the Secretary of State, 1 copy for the Inquiry Library, and a copy for each of the Rule 6 parties (3 in total) together with sufficient copies for the main parties and spares if possible for members of the public.

Rule 6 parties are asked to provide a minimum of 4 hard copies (1 each for the Council and Appellant and 2 for the Planning Inspectorate).

14. Statement(s) of Common Ground

Statements of Common Ground should also be submitted four weeks before the relevant session of the inquiry commences. It is understood that there are likely to be fundamental differences between the parties, but a clear exposition of what is not agreed and why is also going to be helpful.

15. S106 Agreement

Parties are urged to give early consideration to the scope and content of any such obligation. Drafts should be made available as early as possible. Executed obligations/agreements should be submitted before the close of the Inquiry.

16. Core documents and document numbering

Parties were asked to cooperate on producing and circulating a final numbered list of Core Documents as soon as possible to inform the preparation of proofs and the assembling of the Inquiry Library. Where it could reduce the need for copying, relevant extracts would be acceptable.

As advised in Circular 05/2000, documents should be A4 sized, with appendices bound separately. Summary proof should be separate documents. Plans or photographs should also be at A4 size, or folded to A4, to assist in filing and handling of documents.

Please also use a reference number for any other documents to be submitted e.g Inquiry proofs. I suggest G 1 – 10 (Gelnkerrin), LBE 1 – 10 (LB Ealing), SEC 1 – 10 (Save Ealing’s Centre) etc.

17. Documents in electronic format

Documents can be made available in electronic format to facilitate exchange. However I will require the usual hard copy sets for use at the Inquiry.

18. Submissions and conditions etc on disc.

It would be very useful to receive copes of opening statements and closing speeches on disk, or by E-mail through the Planning Inspectorate. – as well as hard copy. These can be very helpful in saving note taking, and can be useful in drafting the report, to make sure that essential points are accurately recorded.

In the same vein, I would appreciate electronic copies of document lists, and a list of agreed conditions.

Electronic documents should be on a CD and in Word format.

19. Outline Programme so far

AT PRESENT THE TIMETABLE THEREFORE LOOKS LIKE: (NB subject to revision and confirmation)
26 May 2009	Latest date for submission of proofs of evidence.
26 May 2009	Latest date for submission of Statement(s) of Common Ground
23 June 2009	Inquiry opens
23 June 2009	Evidence for parties, starting with Glenkerrin (UK) Ltd

20. Any Other Matters

None were raised. The Inspector thanked everyone for their attendance.

David Richards

29 Apr 2009