Incongruence in planning decisions
We have 2 houses, almost identical in Friary Road, W3. Both are on the corner of the road, at opposite ends. One application was for the erection of 2 dwellings in the garden, with onside parking. That application, to my mind, had big drawbacks - it wasn't in keeping with the area of semis, took away garden space, and was at a junction which is locally known by residents to be dangerous, which the Council is aware of. That application, despite opposition, got the go-ahead and a plethora of reasons as to why were given.The other house, on the other corner, was for one dwelling to be built in rear garden but no onsite parking. Same set-up, same kind of semi-detached house. Mirror images of each other but with this application only ONE dwelling and NO onsite parking. This was refused and a plethora of reasons as to why were given, such as "not in keeping with the area" etc. Doesn't make sense does it?There is no difference in these two locations of course. Or is there? Ah yes, there is! This 2nd, lesser development sits at the junction with the green. The green Catalyst Housing wish to take away from common use and close off one of the roads, meaning this road, at the junction with this man's home, will be deluged with traffic. I challenge Ealing Council to tell us why they have made incongruent decisions, given this 2nd plan was a lesser one. Watch this space. Clearly the Council are lining all Catalyst's ducks up in a row for them.
Angela White ● 4115d4 Comments ● 4108d