Forum Topic

A40 Green Corridor

At the last Goldsmiths Residents Association meeting, we were told by our representative on the East Acton Forum that when the question of the A40 Green Corridor was discussed at that forum, he specifically asked the three councillors if they would back the Resident's Association view: that the width of the green corridor should be  25 metres and we should settle for nothing less.However all three councillors refused to confirm that they would support this view -  which the previous set of councillors had agreed to.

Kathleen Chapple ● 5424d4 Comments

This is massively important to garner support to maintain / preserve the green corridor.  A couple of local road resident associations are very active on this front.  Let's not let the councillors do a "Friars Place Lane" on us with this one.

Zak Aaron ● 5421d

The Council have committed over £2m of Section 106 funding (developer money) to a new public square at North Acton station that the residents have not requested. They could be using this to buyout Transport for London (who own a number of the A40 green areas) and secure the A40 land for green space.

Vlod Barchuk ● 5421d

Not sure if this is relevant:London Borough of EalingDevelopment (or Core) StrategySubmission Development Plan Document – IndependentExaminationExamination hearingMatter 9 – Protecting and enhancing Ealing’s green and openspacesTo be held at 10.00 hours on Tuesday 15th November 2011 inPrinces Hall, Ealing Town Hall_____________________________________________________Inspector : Elizabeth Fieldhouse DipTP, DipUD, MRTPI.Programme Officer : Caroline Caldwell__________________________________________________________________________AGENDA1. Opening and Introductions2. Whether the policy framework for Green Infrastructure (GI) and OpenSpace is an appropriate reflection of local needs and opportunities and issufficiently clear, detailed, and conforms to national policy requirements?3. Will the Green Belt boundary endure for the lifetime of the plan?4. Are all the proposed developments within the Green Belt (policy 5.1)justified and appropriate development within the advice in PPG2?5. A definition of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) is necessary. Are theproposed uses compatible within MOL to ensure its protection?6. Is adequate provision made for the establishing of local green spaces foruses such as allotments?7. To make policies 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3 effective, is there no need for furthersupporting paragraphs? At least an explanation of green corridors andtheir benefits would be necessary to justify policy 5.3, but MOL andGreen Belt may also require supporting text?8. If additional land is to be identified to meet policy 5.7 requirements, to beeffective this should be identified in the Development Sites DPD, butthere is no reference to this document?9. Is reference to the Blue Ribbon network necessary when reference ismade to the Grand Union Canal and the River Brent in policy 5.3 and dothey provide an opportunity for north-south routes and freight transport?Should reference to the network also be included within the appropriatelocal area in Appendix 2 to be effective?10. Has the heritage value of parks and green spaces been fully recognised?11. Can the greening of Warwick Road where it crosses Ealing Common(policy 5.2(c)) be effectively provided for without reference in the CS?12. Whether a spatial policy for the safeguarding of outdoor, communitysports facilities is necessary and, if so whether or not this is adequatelyprovided for in the polices in chapter 5?13. Any further points?14. Closing and than

Dee Cook ● 5421d

There are a number of websites covering this topic.  Let's monitor it and keep on top of it to preserve the corridor.

Zak Aaron ● 5418d