Forum Topic

Ethical? Trustworthy?  Unbiased?  Ealing Planning Dept.

I'm just reading through several planning applications which all read the same:  the planning dept/planner puts forward their case to "recommend" approval for the application but in their case they outline that the density levels exceed those recommended for either a suburban area or PTAL levels, then go on to justify their "recommendation" that approval is given because it either meets the shortage of housing targets or "it's ok in this context".  Er, that's bending the area to suit your aims, isn't it Ealing?  Example text:  "The density of the proposal is over the recommended density within the London Plan. Nevertheless, the density proposed is considered to respond appropriately to the location of the development, its size and configuration, and its residential context. As a result the quantum and intensity of the development on site is considered acceptable and in accordance with the aspirations of adopted policies to increase density to reduce the shortage of housing."We're being had, ladies and gentlemen of Acton.  Time we shouted clear and loud.

Angela White ● 4123d6 Comments

We have towers in North Acton.  North Acton is classed as urban.  The Council have said itself that North Acton is a high activity area and the A40 is the barrier - so we don't want urban creep.If this proposal develops into a plan and doesn't get vetoed, Ealing Council, the planning dept, its "leader" and its councillors need serious investigation. 

Angela White ● 4122d

Yes I also heard it said that we already have towers in Acton so what's the problem? The point is that they are ugly, horrid things and we don't want them as a precedent. How they ever got built in the first place, I really don't know.

Chris Hurley ● 4122d

Yes, really odd and, frankly, shameful if that information is incorrect, which I believe it to be.  I have swotted over the London Plan and the Ealing policies for months now and I have to say, I think they are absolutely wrong.  They are making it up as they go along, imho.That local resident wouldn't be a former Councillor?!  So, those towers are there......but they do not work.  Why have more of them.  There is too much evidence to ignore the fact that towers cause all kinds of issues - discommunity, depression, for example.I have been asking for a couple of months now about the urban/suburban designation of Acton Central (not around the hubs, High Street, as they are urban, as outlined in diagrams in the Ealing policies).  I haven't received an answer to my question, until last night, which we are now questioning as to its accuracy.

Angela White ● 4122d

We urgently need clarification about the urban/suburban issue. It is absolutely crucial that all are clear on this (including the planning dept and councillors). The other committment we got was an absolute assurance that all the current tenants in Friary Park who will lose their homest, will get re housed on the same site. So that's alright then.

Chris Hurley ● 4122d

The oddest thing. At Ward Forum last night, one of our Councillors read a briefing from the Planners asserting that ALL of Acton had been designated URBAN by both the London and the Ealing plans. Of course several residents said otherwise, but if you are following discussions about the Premier Inn and the Friary Park proposals, you will immediately see that this 'mistake' is crucial. Catalyst told a recent open meeting that they wouldn't have spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on their proposals without 'some assurances' from Ealing Council.Funnily enough, a well connected local told me that the towers by the police station, built in the sixties, were sufficient justification for towers at Friary Park. He seemed annoyed residents had the cheek to be concerned at all.Odd isn't it?

Maire Lowe ● 4122d

And we will!

Chris Hurley ● 4123d