VOTING: May I just correct and add to my posting of the other day, it is right that 7 Committee Members voted against the application for the 25-storey building proposed and that the other 5 Members sitting in the same block of seats voted for it, but I omitted to add that the Chair (Cllr. Steve Hynes) sitting separately in the chamber also voted, thus making it 7 - 6 Against as finally recorded (i.e. after the error in thinking that the block's votes had been 6 - 6 to which Cllr. Hynes then chose to use his "casting votes" thus making it 7 - 6 in favour to grant).As Tania guessed, height was not given as a reason for refusal, but I wonder if the second application for the 35-storey building would have been subject to more scrutiny had the first application been refused earlier on (as it should have been)!I am just wondering what would have happened if I had not gone along to hear the Committee debate that night?Would the planning permission have stood as no one else raised the matter and normally interventions from upstairs in the public gallery are met with harsh warnings even threats of eviction from the Town Hall Chamber! I was not connected to any of the Acton cases myself but whenever I can, I like to attend the Planning Committee Meetings (as I have done frequently during the past 31 years). It so happened that I was seated downstairs next to the Objectors' spokesperson at his invitation on the night - I had intended to go upstairs as usual into the public gallery. The previous Chair of the Planning Committee, Cllr. Karam Mohan, always used to remind the public politely that they were there merely to listen to the proceedings - not to participate in them.NOTIFICATION: In one of the other postings, two planning issues were raised about: the cessation of neighbour notifications by letter (21 days) and the prevention of public speaking. The latter occurred in a case last year (1 Golden Manor, Hanwell) and has been mentioned in the Forum before.I am aware of several cases in Hanwell, Ealing and Acton in Studland Road, Mount Park Crescent, Gibbon Road, Gunnersbury Drive and Kenilworth Road in recent times under the new system of non-notification by letter, where the yellow Public Lamppost Notices have disappeared (assuming that they were affixed in the first place) and even next door neighbours were unaware of the existence of planning applications clearly diminishing the enjoyment and amenity of their homes.That said, even in the days of letter notification, things went wrong. In Rosemont Road Acton W3, at No.1, originally a private dwellinghouse but in recent times converted into flats including one retained by the Landlord, I believe, two of the existing tenants and occupiers of the building were shocked to find upon returning from Saturday morning shopping that about a dozen ladies & gentleman were walking through their hallway and the rear garden on a formal Planning Member Councillors Site Visit (prior to Committee 4 days later)! The application being to erect a new house in the back garden of the original Victorian property which backed onto Springfield Gardens park and apart from spoiling the leafy open outlook into the park would have affected an entrance passageway making it difficult for one couple with a baby pram being forced to use another route with steps - about which they knew nothing and had not received any letters! If such letters were ever sent out by the Planning Department, then it seems that they must have vanished soon after.Fortunately, the backgarden application was refused at the ensuing Committee (even though our Ealing planners thought it to be quite suitable). A subsequent appeal lodged at The Planning Inspectorate was likewise dismissed.PUBLIC SPEAKING: As for the very surprising prevention of Public Speaking at Committee in October 2017 on a Hanwell case, I have sent a "Third Stage" complaint to the Chief Executive, Mr Paul Najsarek, about this issue and will post details of it on the Forum later today. It was the first time ever, as far as I know, that a member of the public who had duly registered to speak in accordance with the Council's requirements and attended the Meeting in order to do so, had been prevented from doing so because the developer or his agent apparently telephoned the Council to say that he had been delayed by traffic (and despite the case being put back to allow more time for them to arrive).V.Mishiku - "The Covenant Movement" 28/2/18vmfree@madasafish.comPS. With apologies to Christina for misspelling her first name.
Victor Mishiku ● 2981d