FOLLOWING last night's Planning Committee meeting, the controversial Perceval House development has now been approved, after Councillors voted seven to three in favour of the project, with three abstentions.

The scheme will now be referred to the Greater London Authority and the Secretary for Housing, Communities and Local Government for final planning approval.

If they agree, the demolition of Perceval House – which currently houses the Council's main office accommodation – could start as soon as December.

A final decision on the development was deferred at the previous Planning Committee meeting, only three weeks ago (February 17), with much concern being cited over the fact that only seven out of 477 flats would be three-bed properties, while the rest would be one or two beds.

That has now been amended and 28 of the 477 flats will be three-bed properties, an increase from 1.5% of the total that it was previously, to 5.9%.

Another issue was the size of the tower that is being proposed, with many residents dismayed at the fact that a 26-storey building would be built in the centre of Ealing.

Ealing Central and Acton MP, Rupa Huq, said at the time: "I simply could not stand to allow this 26-storey monster tower, so ill-suited to Ealing's housing needs, to be waived through."

The Labour MP argues that the 'changed composition' of the planning committee compared to last month's meeting helped get the proposal approved this time around.

Conservative Councillor, Joanna Dabrowska, who was not a rostered member on last night's committee, tweeted: "Tonight's planning committee is an utter embarrassment to the town planning industry.

"How not to bring a planning application to committee, how not to run such committee and how not to know the answers to basic planning questions."

Leader of the Ealing Conservatives, Councillor Gregory Stafford tweeted: "Last night's Ealing Planning Committee was a disgrace.

"Putting aside the terrible result - where Labour forced through another skyscraper - the committee was appallingly run.

"Officers were confused and misleading.

"I have written a formal complaint to the CEO of Ealing Council."

Councillor Mik Sabiers, cabinet lead for housing, planning and transformation, said: "As a council, we are focused on delivering more genuinely affordable housing for local families and the Perceval House redevelopment is one of the ways we are doing this.

"I am pleased that Ealing's planning committee has given its approval, because this means we are on track to house more people on our waiting list even sooner than initially planned, as well as get the most out of this important, town-centre location with a new library and commercial space.

"Sadly, the job and housing protections that have been put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic will come to an end later this year.

"When this happens, we know that even more vulnerable residents will turn to us for help and we need to be ready.

"That's why we are doing everything we can to create quality, affordable homes for local people.

"As well as being important from an affordable housing perspective, the Perceval House redevelopment is also important for Ealing Broadway town centre and for retail and businesses.

"Along with Dickens Yard and the Filmworks development, it will help to drive the regeneration of our town centre after COVID-19, helping to reinforce it as a destination and a great place to live and work."

Councillor Julian Bell, leader of Ealing Council, added: "The decision by Ealing's planning committee is a step forward for this scheme which will bring more much-needed genuinely affordable housing into Ealing Town centre.

"It will also build smaller, cost-effective council offices, confirming the council's continued presence in Ealing town centre supporting local businesses.

"The world and our way of working has changed significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

"The ability for staff to work flexibly and for council services to be delivered in different ways means that our office needs have changed, which will save money for both the council and local council tax-payers."