Forum Topic

oaks

i see  they have have  lost  in  the  high court so  its going  ahead so  waitrose here it  comes

John Kennedy ● 4316d26 Comments

Well at least I won't have to catch a bus all the way to Westfield to get a few items that you can only get in Waitrose.. Gotta start looking on the bright side I suppose..Hope that the service is as good as the service in Westfield, they're always so polite

Tanya Santos ● 4316d

yes tanya but  it  will  take 2 yrs b4  they open

John Kennedy ● 4316d

And they could well be gone in a year, as they did in Hornchurch.

Adam Kimmel ● 4316d

Maybe we would finally end up with an Aldi which would fill a real gap in the market round here. There are already Waitroses in Chiswick, Westfield and West Ealing but the nearest Aldi is far away in Hounslow.

Phil Conran ● 4316d

Actually if you read the front-page article the battle is not be quite over.This decision may now be appealed.As understand it - and please correct me someone if I am getting this wrong -  the key point under dispute is whether the Council have the right to appoint whoever they want to planning meetings.That's vital to the democratic process. Because in this case the Council allegedly packed the planning committee with a load of Southall and out of-area councillors to make the final decision.And a lot of people see that as a gerrymandering of the final vote and anti-democratic.

Richard Grange ● 4316d

Aldi please.

Kim Rugg ● 4316d

RichardThe rules around planning are fairly strict, and for local councilors from the ward concerned to be on the committee, they would be unable to support the campaign by the anti Oaks group (as they did) and could be challenged by the developer for being biassed. You seem to miss the point that if there was any political traction in this 'packing' line, Boris would have taken it up. The Tory/Lib Dem block vote was also out of the area.

Pete Grist ● 4315d

Hi Peter,I am only repeating what is reported on the web-site.The anti-development group states it is going to appeal the decision.Key to that is the issue of whether council's have a right to substitute councillors on their planning committees  - which theoretically raises the opportunity for councils across the country to "pack" their planning committees to get controversial decisions through. The ruling was that this is lawful - possibly because of the Boris angle. But others feel this is anti-democratic - which is why this is set to be appealed.

Richard Grange ● 4315d

me  thinks a waste  of  time  its  going  to  happen look whats  happening  chatworts pub  looking  to  turn  it  into  flats

John Kennedy ● 4315d

My view is apathy is the enemy.If you keep rolling over - they'll do it to you again.At the very least the Oaks legal dispute and the tenacity of the people behind it - is a clear warning to developers and the council that Acton is not going to take controversial planning decisions lying down.

Richard Grange ● 4315d

Whatever the outcome I do wish they would get on with it! All talk and no action. We will be without the shops in The Oaks for ages and Acton High Street needs more good shops urgently. I would love an Aldi in this area.

Jean F Fernandez ● 4315d

There's no suggestion of an AldiI'm told Superdrug is closing and will be replaced by a Savers - but much the same staff apparently.

Sara Nathan ● 4315d

Don't think the Oaks plans are as bad as some say. I would love a Waitrose and some good shops locally . Would also like to see independent shops( like on Churchfield Road) on the high street. There is a great little italian coffe shop/ cafe run by a lovely lady near acton hill.

Joe Johnson ● 4314d

I really cant see what the fuss is about, there's hundreds of empty and horrible shop fronts on Acton High ST. The vocal few seem to think they speak for "the community" - well they don't.  If we get a Waitrose, we may get a Starbucks then the other shops will follow. You start at the top not the bottom. The rubbish these 99p shops sell does nothing for any High Street.If you want to do something positive for Acton High Street try and get the council to ensure shop fronts are smart and rents/rates are manageable. Not by the tired and tedious route of stopping big business for its own sake.

Antony OBrien ● 4308d

Why would we want a Starbucks?They don't pay taxes here, they suck resource out of a High Street rather than putting it in andlast, but not least, their coffee is vile.I'd rather have good, independent coffee shops any day.Most people who do object, object not to the Waitrose per se but to the incongruous tower on Churchfield Road, the gated housing, the lack of public space and the appalling process this went through to get passed (or some of the above!)

Sara Nathan ● 4308d

Good for you. Im not talking about what their coffee tastes like, to you. Im talking about making it an attractive high street. We'd all rather have lots of independent shops and Churchfield road seems to be able to deliver some of that. Acton High Street needs a different solution. The "tower" will fund some of the upgrade, you live in London not a quaint Suffolk village. Every project in the world has people complaining about it. I believe people even slaughtered Wren for St Pauls...

Antony OBrien ● 4308d

good point would  be  nice  if  we  had  closure  on  this  seems  to  going  on  for  ever

John Kennedy ● 4308d

And it's perfectly possible to do good regeneration and building in scale with the surroundings and offering something of benefit to the existing residents and businesses as well as the pockets of the developers.But that isn't the case here: it's disproportionate, ugly and very dense.We are not in the country (and why would we want to be?) but that's no reason for poor design and shoddy execution. Urban sites should be at least as good as rural ones - they generate much more money so it should be actually preferable to do it well rather than badly.I don't think anyone opposing the Oaks plans wants it to stay as it is now, but why should we be fobbed off with a rather crummy scheme (and potential winner of the carbuncle cup) when Acton deserves better?

Sara Nathan ● 4308d

It seems that the argument being outlined by some of the above writers is..what we have got at the moment on Acton High Street is hideous and under-invested, so let's be grateful for Daniel Levy's money and lets let him exploit Acton for generations to come with an appalling bit of design and town centre planning...because then we'll get a Waitrose. If you have blind faith in your council to do what is best or right then you need to wake up. They need to be challenged and held to account by the people they claim to represent. This scheme is nothing to do with what is best for Acton - its driven by government set housing targets, and the need for short term cash by a broke local administration. That's why they needed to bus in Southall councillors to vote it through. Planning was the one thing that was meant to be above party politics...the high court judgement has dangerous far reaching consequences for the whole country, in that it sets a precedence for all future planning decisions to be whipped on party lines.

Charlie Mawer ● 4308d

Well that it is ugly is an opinion. That's all. I see lots of ugly buildings that are pleasant because they are well managed. But it seems from your post there is far more baggage to your complaint than simple aesthetics.

Antony OBrien ● 4308d

I don't think Charlie had an agenda before this rather poor planning decision. I know I didn't have at all. I merely wanted a development which would be an enhancement for Acton not a blot on the land (or city) scape.But it was a shocking process with huge implications for how planning decisions are made.

Sara Nathan ● 4308d

Its a sad world when due considered opinion can be deemed "baggage". I would love more than anything for the Oaks to be developed and very happy with a Waitrose there..(though the need for another supermarket within a well aimed chuck of an apple from Morrisons and a Sainsbury's local - feels a little surplus.  You're quite right though...ugly is a matter of aesthetic taste. So in these times I try to look for expert guidance. The 2014 "Carbuncle Award" for worst architecture in London has gone to a virtually identical scheme to the Oaks - supermarket in basement - two floors of car parking - gated tower block flats on top. And do you know what... the chair of the council planning dept responsible has just held his hand up to say what a terrible decision it was. So why not read the link to the article, and then you can join me on the protest line complete with a bit of baggage. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/03/woolwich-central-tesco-carbuncle-cup

Charlie Mawer ● 4308d

And to all the people who are blindly accepting of this hideous development, let's not forget the impact the traffic going in and out of the car parks onto Churchfield Road will cause.  The effect on traffic was largely overlooked at the planning meeting (which I attended) and was based on misleading figures.  The corner of Steyne Road, Market Place and Churchfield Road is already an accident waiting to happen, and the large car park planned will only  make matters worse.  Gridlock.

Anne Brown ● 4306d

Now, now, Anne, at the final vote meeting this was all covered comprehensively by the traffic officer who...oh, no, wait, it wasn't, was it?  He had "brought the wrong slides" but had to have this pointed out to him three times before he admitted.  Along with all the other inept and unclear answers that were (or were not) given that evening, what a great sales job they did that day!  Little wonder it got voted through, especially swaying the mind of the one Labour councillor who initially said he was against it, but then voted it through.As they say, you have to laugh...

Adam Kimmel ● 4306d

The sole purpose of the so called development is the flats.Ealing council will very slightly reduce the balance sheet with a proportion of affordable housing. It will put added pressure on the local services that are way over capacity. As for 'Wait-Ruse'.. dream on.The existing Oaks should simply be modified and updated. The remaining money would be better spent improving the High street and then waitrose and the like will come.

Peter Savick ● 4302d

The sole purpose of the so called development is the flats.Ealing council will very slightly reduce the balance sheet with a proportion of affordable housing. It will put added pressure on the local services that are way over capacity. As for 'Wait-Ruse'.. dream on.The existing Oaks should simply be modified and updated. The remaining money would be better spent improving the High street and then waitrose and the like will come.

Peter Savick ● 4302d