Forum Topic

Skyscrapers in Park Royal

If we are going to have lots more tall buildings in London it is hard to think of a better place to put them than in Park Royal. It is still a predominantly industrial area and blighted by proximity to the North Circular and the A40. Even if the buildings are badly designed then it is probably a case of replacing ugly with less ugly.Over 700 new homes are to be welcomed as well.

Alan Fairclough ● 4225d30 Comments

Sorry Alan but homes are not really what they are, would you want to live on and industrial estate in a tower block we seem to have gone back to the 60's when our communities were decimated by living on top of one another, and the key workers rental on a 2 bed flat is £1500 a month who can afford that not the nurse who got a 1% pay rise

Diana Oneill ● 4225d

As long as they are affordable homes rather than for foreign investors.

Kim Rugg ● 4225d

At the exhibition I went to, one of the architects said that there would be about 20% 'affordable' housing – whatever that means nowadays. No 'social' housing.And, last time I heard, there isn't a GP anywhere between the A40 and Brent. The Cloister Road surgery was inundated with 700 new student patients about a year ago. When I asked about this at the exhibition, they said that there *might* be room for a surgery of some sort.It's the lack of forethought about infrastructure that worries me. What about the sewers!?!

Nancy Duin ● 4225d

It is a horrible idea. If the only objective is to provide four walls and a roof, then it does just that. But it is not a residential area, anyone who lives there is trapped in the middle of what is effectively a roundabout in the middle of an industrial area, and there are absolutely no facilities apart from a Tesco Metro, a betting shop, a couple of coffee bars and a pizza parlour (oh, and a yoga studio).  There is no outside amenity space, no "town centre", no high street, no schools, no doctor, no park.  No quality of life.  But no doubt it will be built.

Anne Brown ● 4225d

Interestingly, when I went to the CPW site exhibition, they said that there would be 'about 500 units'. This has somehow become 700+!There are plans to create a 'town square' – the council is compulsorily purchasing the petrol station by North Acton station to put it there. But I don't think it will be big enough for everyone in the new development to stand up in it at the same time...Can't wait to see how many children they think will be living in this development. It has been estimated, using a formula that all council planning departments use, that The Oaks, with 434 units, will be home to only 12 children - so no need to increase school places then.

Nancy Duin ● 4224d

These are dormitories effectively for students and city workers. At least thre is not much either to destroy or worthy of preserving and London is voracious for more space.Am just hoping it gets lived in and not bought as investments by non-doms who can see crossrail and eurostar as cash cows.

Sara Nathan ● 4224d

I lived in a converted ex-Council tower block in Battersea in the eighties and it was a superb place to live. The problem with residential towers is that in this country we saw them as cheap housing for the poor and put in the elderly, single mums and problem tenants in one large block creating misery and social problems. In other countries tall residential building have been very desirable and I'm sure this will be if nicely designed. It will be less than a half an hour from the City and the West End once Crossrail is built and will have amazing views over west London plus be a short journey from some of the most beautiful countryside in Europe.Singletons or young couples weren't bothered about the lack of amenities in Docklands because they spent relatively little time in the area around where they live because it was primarily a place for them to sleep.

Alan Fairclough ● 4224d

I live in one of the blocks there at the moment, and although I don't like the overdevelopment of the area with no useful new facilities - docs, shops, outside spaces, I'm not against their being flats. However, I don't think ANY of it will be affordable. Even the block going up on the corner of Chase Rd/Victoria Rd was SUPPOSED to be 20% affordable, but then they lined some pockets to pay for a bit of the new square and that affordable housing has evaporated. I don't have any hope the DixonsCarphone redevelopment will be any better.

Elly Belpassi ● 4224d

Remember that this government have effectively ended any new social housing and moved to so called 'affordable' which if let is at up to 80% of local market rents..... Most of the 'affordable' is for sale on a shared ownership basis, which can work but not in large developments with service charges not under the residents control....... Also S106 requirements have been relaxed so as to encourage developers to build, with significantly reduced contributions to infrastructure, education, transport, health etc as well as 'affordable' housing.

Iain Muir ● 4224d

'Non-dom' or more correctly foreign investors have been very important for reducing the upward pressure on property prices in London. Far fewer new flats would have been built without them because mortgage restrictions mean that it is very difficult for domestic buyers to get funding. Developers will not build new homes if they don't feel comfortable they will sell at least enough of them to cover their costs. Ultimately the only way to make sure that housing in London is more affordable is to ensure that new homes build matches or exceeds the rise in population.

Andy Jones ● 4224d

"Non-dom' or more correctly foreign investors have been very important for reducing the upward pressure on property prices in London" - really?? I thought they were largely responsible for buying up property as investments while leaving them empty. What a sick society we live in.

Chris Hurley ● 4224d

You are wrong. Evidence was presented to a parliamentary select committee on housing last year which showed that a foreign owned flat is no more likely to remain vacant than ones owned domestically. A sick society to me is one that immediately looks to pin the blame on foreigners for any problems that we have. Ironically in this case foreign investors are very much part of the solution.

Andy Jones ● 4224d

What exhibition?

Mark Evans ● 4224d

Well, the developer of the Park Royal skyscraper(s) certainly qualifies as foreign. According to one of his architects, he's a billionaire living in Switzerland. Not much interest in our community then...

Nancy Duin ● 4224d

The web site of the company named as the developer shows that the founding partners are Sean Arnold and Nick Lyle - they both seem to be primarily based in London.Even if they were actually Swiss billionaires they are still providing us with 800 new homes which is probably as big a net benefit to our community as most of us could aspire to.

Andy Jones ● 4224d

But it doesn't matter how many new homes are built if no one can afford them! My daughter got married last year. She and her husband both have good professional jobs but all they could afford was a part share in a 2 bed flat in Leyton - and that was with major help from his parents for the deposit.

Chris Hurley ● 4223d

The flats wouldn't be built if nobody could afford them.There are two main reasons for your daughter's problems with housing. Firstly that prices are being driven up by the lack of supply - this development will help stop that. Even if you can't afford to live in it, the person who can may be vacating a home in your price range. Secondly, since the financial crisis the banks have become increasingly regulated with regards to mortgages. This is proving to be counterproductive because apart from really badly run banks like Northern Rock mortgages were the safest and most profitable part of a bank's business. Six years ago two young people with a good jobs (let's say £40,000 per annum plus) would have had banks falling over themselves to give them mortgages of over £300,000 especially if they could provide some sort of deposit.

Andy Jones ● 4223d

Don't see any problem with this project in principle and, like others, I would welcome the creation of any new home in London as they are much needed.The one note of caution I would sound is that tall buildings tend to encourage more tall buildings and development creep. Once this structure goes up people will start to thing in terms of a development corridor along the A40 in the same way the A4 is being built up. The first place they will look is the industrial estates by Western Avenue near where Staples is and then there will be pressure for adjacent site to be built up.We've seen this in the Chiswick/Brentford area when taller buildings were given permission to enable the football club to build a stadium but now it looks like developers want to put up a building three times their height at Chiswick Roundabout.

Paul Corcoran ● 4223d

Hadn't realised they were going for 32 storeys - twice as high as existing buildings. Isn't thAt a bit extreme?

Sara Nathan ● 4219d

Apparently not. The article on this site suggests they have already held discussions with Ealing Council and I'm sure if they were likely to be implacably opposed to it they would have made that clear.Tall buildings are coming to west London whether we like it or not. There is reportedly a 42 storey tower planned for Chiswick Roundabout. Park Royal seems to be as good a place as any for development like this if it is inevitable anyway. Most people are unlikely to make a fuss about it until they see the tower cranes from their gardens by which time it will be too late.

Paul Corcoran ● 4219d

I don't have a problem with tall buildings where they are built on the fringes of existing residential areas. As sites go, a location in a traffic island on the northern side of the A40 may in time be seen as an improvement to what is there. I suspect also a lot of the Old Oak Common development, if / when it happens will be high rise. But again its on industrial land.What I like less is when developers try to build them smack in the middle of low-rise residential areas - where often they are inappropriate to their surroundings and likely to cause maximum local disruption.

Richard Grange ● 4219d

Like the 20 storeys building proposed for the Friary estate at the South east corner. That's a very large shadow cast on the development.

Kim Rugg ● 4219d

First I've heard of that one Kim - it will be very visible across Acton because that is quite an elevated position. Surprised there hasn't been more discussion about it. Has planning permission been applied for yet?

Andy Jones ● 4219d

The planning permission probably won't happen for quite a while. They're not submitting the proposal until June and don't anticipate getting approval till December.The developer/housing association Catalyst is holding a workshop on 'The New Neighbourhood' at the community centre in Friary Park tomorrow 6.30-8.30pm. This is the first time that the impact on the area outside the estate is being addressed. I've only had one leaflet (delivered this week) and I live just down the road from Friary Park (Eastbourne Ave).

Nancy Duin ● 4218d

It is mentioned in Sanya's comprehensive report on the Friary place development.

Kim Rugg ● 4218d

Thanks Kim but as I don't live that near Friary Place I didn't read the thread and, when I did, it there was no mention of the height of the development. Don't want to be over-critical of someone who is clearly trying to keep us up-to-date but the report isn't comprehensive if this key detail is not mentioned.It now appears (if you read the latest posts on the thread) that the height of the development may be 29 storeys not a mere 20 as originally suggested. This becomes an issue for Acton residents in a much wider radius as the building will be visible from where they live.

Andy Jones ● 4217d

Interesting article in the Independent today about exactly this issuehttp://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/architecture/londons-galloping-highrise-developments-face-a-backlash-from-protest-movement-10073657.html

Richard Grange ● 4217d

Andy Jones wrote:"It now appears (if you read the latest posts on the thread) that the height of the development may be 29 storeys not a mere 20 as originally suggested. This becomes an issue for Acton residents in a much wider radius as the building will be visible from where they live."The proposed height of the tallest Friary Park tower (although this may change – up or down) is currently 20 storeys. Because it will be on the top of a hill (right opposite Acton Main Line station on Horn Lane), it will definitely be visible from all over Acton – our own Shard!Went to the interesting 'New Neighbourhood' meeting at Friary Park yesterday. Good news is that Catalyst propose greatly increasing the size of 'Friars' Green', the triangular park between Friary Park and the A40. Present plans are for it to be about a third of the size of Springfield Gardens. It will remain in public ownership (Catalyst will 'donate' extra land to it to make it a square), which is a relief.What is worrying is that Catalyst is conferring really only with the residents of Friary Park. Now, I'm not saying that they shouldn't be – the development will have a profound effect on the residents' lives – but they are ignoring the effect of such a large development on the doorstep of those of us who don't live on the estate but nearby, if only the fact that we will have to endure up to 3 years of construction with no benefits for ourselves.

Nancy Duin ● 4217d

Angela White has a very different view to you on the issue of Friary Park open spaces. Have a read of the thread 'Notices from meeting with Catalyst...'.Catalyst are always likely to restrict consultation to the smallest area possible so that they can say they fulfilled their statutory duty but avoid too many people being aware of what is happening before it is too late.

Mark Evans ● 4216d

I presume Catalyst are going to wait and see what happens with the Carphone Warehouse site before putting in the planning application for the Friary Park building. It will be a much harder sell close as it is to existing low rise residential. However if an even taller building has been given permission quite close by that will give them ammunition.

Alan Fairclough ● 4214d