Forum Topic

OAKS development- CCA meeting with developers

Upstairs at the Rocket (please buy a drink or several on the way up as lovely Philippe is not - I think - charging us for the room) July 18th - 1930Come and quiz the developers who are proposing the huge project on top of the Oaks at a Churchfield Community Association meeting.I've asked them to present on "Why local people should be in favour of this development" but to expect questions on why they might not be.Details of speakers nearer the time but their PR lady has confirmed they will be there.Please post here or email me at sara@natsing.co.uk to say you are coming (and let me know if you are NOT a member)

Sara Nathan ● 5567d16 Comments

I will be there.

Ros Fisher ● 5563d

Yes I will be there.I am not a member of the CCA. Should I become one?Sarah

Sarah Vickers ● 5560d

Well, predictably as chair, I would always say yes - particularly if you "live, work or shop in and around Churchfield Road" - which is how we define the core of who we serve.Information, joining forms and incredibly reasonable rates - think £5 a YEAR on the CCA website: http://www.churchfield.org/

Sara Nathan ● 5560d

Just a reminder about this meeting on Monday 18th July at the Rocket.Do post if you are thinking of coming.ta

Sara Nathan ● 5552d

Carnival over ---moving on to the next thingIt's this meeting Jolly important so do come

Sara Nathan ● 5548d

Hi Sara,Not a member but expect to attend if possible.Are the plans/proposals available anywhere so I can review in advance?

Thomas Maher ● 5545d

To get a copy of the plans, go to the developer's website - http://www.theoaksacton.co.uk - and you'll find a link to the pdf that has all the display boards that were shown at the exhibition at The Oaks a few weeks ago. I'll be coming to the meeting, too. (And, yes, you definitely should join the CCA - see http://www.churchfield.org for all the info you need to join.)

Nancy Duin ● 5545d

Have asked PR lady about updated plans - I had thought the full planning permission might have been applied for by now which would at least be definitive - haven't heard yet.

Sara Nathan ● 5545d

1930UPSTAIRS AT rOCKET

Sara Nathan ● 5541d

Went along this evening and can't believe that a) they are only anticipating that 25 children would move into the 124 residential unit development (He actually specified 25 x 0-18year olds!) and that they think the traffic plan is viable which will see an increase in parking by over 100%, plus delivery vehicles, plus residents. What are they on?

Alex Watson ● 5540d

Alex. Did the developer indicate how many of these units would be handed over for social housing?(nothing wrong with that) BUT Social housing usually means children and lots of.Lets say for example 50 units ( but my guess would be more) were SH with an average of 2 children per unit, that would be 100 children at least......of all ages needing school places.Developers make things sound so good don't they?

Ellie Rose ● 5540d

There was a discussion about "affordable housing" but not on what the composition of that would be ie one, two or three bed apartments of (I suppose likely) a mix.They said the numbers were still being negotiated.The planning application is due to go in next week. I will post the link when I get it.

Sara Nathan ● 5540d

25 children...yeah right.  Could they give any justification of how they had come up with this figure or was it merely 'creative thinking'?  Even 25 more children would be a strain on the current school allocation.  Don't even get me started on the traffic.I know we need more housing and people need homes but it seems these developers are on a different planet when it comes to logistics...

Anna John ● 5540d

Don't blame the developers for trying it on.  They don't take into consideration the local infrastructure, they see that as the council's call and they're right - it's not the developers job to worry about schools/doctors/utilities/space, etc.If the infrustucture isn't able to cope with another development, and we know it's not, I wonder how the developers "persuade" the council to grant these sorts of permissions...Having said that, they've not yet got permission granted - but I bet they do and I bet they're lobbying (and we all know what that means!) the council as I type.  I think anything is better than the Oaks, although the height of the building is a concern.

Sarah Harris ● 5540d

......and what about the water consumption such a large development would take from the existing system, which cannot cope with the local demand .. ie, water pressures.

Dee Cook ● 5540d

The council planners have obviously made some demands which the developers have found quite testing on lines of sight to St Mary's church for example.Apparenty it's a big enough project that it has to go to the GLA/Mayor as well as Ealing.

Sara Nathan ● 5539d