Multi-let industrial units at 16 Eastman Road, Acton, London W3

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing existing buildings and creating two single-storey industrial buildings with 12 units, offices, parking, access, cycle spaces and landscaping.

“Demolition of existing building and erection of a single storey industrial and/or logistics units (Class E(g)(iii), Class B2 and B8) with ancillary office space (Class E(g)(i)) alongside associated parking and landscaping.”

“Two industrial buildings, subdivided into a total of 12 individual units, with a combined footprint of approximately 9,140 sqm GIA and a maximum height of up to 12.5 m. • Unit sizes ranging between 498 sqm and 1,501 sqm, each incorporating ancillary office space. • Creation of an internal access road along the southern boundary of the site, including pedestrian footpaths.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is an approximately two-hectare industrial location with residential properties to the south, industrial warehouses around it and access from Eastman Road.

“The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of residential and industrial uses. To the south are primarily two-storey Victorian-style terraced dwellings, with Southfield Recreation Ground located to the southwest. The immediate surroundings to the west, east, and north comprise single-storey industrial warehouses with associated car parking and service yards. Taller multi-storey self-storage buildings are also present in the wider context to the north and west.”

“Vehicular access to the site is provided from the north via Eastman Road, which connects to The Vale. Eastman Road serves as an internal circulation route for adjacent industrial units and terminates in a cul-de-sac at the application site. Pedestrian access from The Vale is available via a footway on the eastern side of Eastman Road; however, there are currently no designated pedestrian routes within the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning permission

A 2024 permission allowed a similar single industrial unit, while the current scheme would provide less floorspace than approved but more than currently exists.

“The approved scheme comprised a single industrial unit positioned centrally within the site, with a service yard located to the west and employer car-parking spaces to the east. The development was served by an access road running along the southern edge of the site.”

“Compared with the previously approved development, the current proposal represents a slight reduction in total industrial floorspace. The scheme now includes two buildings, providing 12 smaller industrial units arranged around dedicated service yards located at the eastern, central, and western parts of the site.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the redevelopment an efficient use of brownfield industrial land with acceptable design, residential amenity, noise, transport and environmental effects.

“The design, layout and landscaping of the development are considered appropriate to the site’s context and represent a significant improvement over the existing industrial buildings. The proposal has been designed to ensure that there would be no unacceptable impacts on neighbouring occupiers in terms of residential amenity.”

“Transport impacts have been assessed and are considered acceptable, with suitable servicing arrangements, parking provision, and sustainable travel measures secured. Environmental matters including biodiversity, drainage, and sustainability have also been addressed and are considered satisfactory subject to the recommended planning conditions.”

Officer report

What objectors said

Objectors opposed unrestricted 24/7 activity and sought controls on vehicle movements, parking access, the outdoor break area, construction hours and heat-pump details.

“[name withheld] representing objectors to the development, made a representation to the committee which included the following key points: • The proposals outline for 24/7 operation was not consistent with the sites current permitted use and would represent an unacceptable noise intensification.”

“Residence requested a manned barrier should be installed in the day and a security card access for 6pm and 7am would be needed or else an alternative appropriate solutions put in place • Residences were uncomfortable that the outdoor break/rest area being so close to Hatfield Road properties, preferring it to be located on the west side of the yard, adjacent to Southfield Park.”

Minutes

Who spoke

The senior planning officer presented the proposal, an objector represented concerns, and the applicant’s representative spoke in favour.

What members discussed

Members discussed parking and cycle arrangements, noise, lighting, trees, water infrastructure and affordable workspace before supporting an additional management condition.

“The Committee asked questions and debated the proposal. In response to some of the questions and points raised, [name withheld] informed that: • As it consists of 12 individual units, the disabled and cycle parking were located as close to the individual units as possible to reduce the distance individuals have to walk to the building. • The noise assessment considered plant noise emissions within the building as well as any external noise.”

“This equation has been secured in the legal agreement, and the exact market rent per square metre will be further agreed by the council's regeneration team and the applicant. The regeneration team published an Affordable Workspace Delivery Plan in October 2025, which sets out precedents regarding how it can collect and allocate affordable workspace contributions.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted unanimously, with one councillor unable to vote because he arrived after the presentation had started.

“The committee proceeded to vote on the application.”

“Councillor S K Jassal arrived after [name withheld] had begun his presentation and so was unable to vote on this item as in accordance with Item 28 of the Code of Conduct for Members Planning as found in the London Borough of Ealing Constitution (2025).”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the legal agreements, highway works, conditions, amended condition 40 and a detailed management plan for the car park and break-out area.

“Grant planning permission, subject to the satisfactory completion of a legal agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), Section 278 Highway works, the conditions listed in Appendix 1 and the amended condition 40 outlined in the Briefing Note.”

“The adding of a detailed management plan of the car park and break out area condition to the application.”

Minutes