Forum Topic

89-91 Shakespeare Rd w3 6sb

DEVELOPMENT OF 89-91 SHAKESPEARE RD  W3 6SB PLANNING APPEAL  ~  LAST CHANCE SALOON?APPEALING AGAINST AN APPEAL AGAINST THE APPEAL 1 0  a m   T u e s d a y   2 4 t h   A p r i l  T o w n  H a l l  E a l i n g    C o m m i t t e e  R o o m  2 Please get there if at all possible  Weight of numbers will make a big differenceFOR THE UNINITIATED THE ATTEMPT TO DEMOLISH AND REDEVELOP THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR NEARLY A YEAR AND A HALF AND LARGELY BECAUSE OF LOCAL RESISTANCE IT HAS BEEN STALLED ~ SO FAR!The proposed replacement scheme is ersatz miniaturised Victoriana ~ and squeezing four house widths into a 3-width site, compared to the scale of neighbouring properties in Poets Corner.  Over the last hundred years or so Acton did not need a blitz to attack its character, it has had an overdose of architectural and developmental self-harming.  Rather than adapting them, a huge number of distinctive buildings and urban spaces in the borough have been demolished and replaced with bland anonymity and tarmac desert. Unsurprisingly this is not a requirement for progress - many boroughs have retained their history and thrived all the more for it, retaining and adapting their idiosyncratic, colourful, historically exciting buildings and streets, mixing the old and new, nurturing an enriching urban experience.The aim is not to preserve the old regardless of quality or practicality but historical photos reveal a remarkable facility for picking out and demolishing the most characterful buildings in Acton ~ the vandalism has been breathtaking. This approach could be reversed.At the last appeal objections on the grounds of aesthetics, density and the council's own guidelines were dismissed and the scheme was rejected only on minor technicalities affecting pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety and amenities to one flat.  The developers are resubmitting the same scheme that has already been rejected for reappraisal ~ with undetectable alteration.  Logically this exposes it to the opportunity for a fresh judgment on all counts, and it should be rejected again, this time with grounds for refusal being the requirement to retain and adapt the main existing building on the street, restricting demolition & development to the workshops behind.

David Buckingham ● 5260d47 Comments

Can resident's oppose via any other route other than attending Tuesday?

Sarah Allan ● 5260d

Sarah, and any others who wish to do so, Email the local councillors as soon as possible. I believe Daniel Crawford is particularly interested in this case.....The purchasers/developers of this site (Freeds 2000 Ltd) thought that obtaining planning permission for this site would be easy but the strong will and determination by local rsidents have indeed made it very hard for them, which they were not expecting.  As a result, they have suffered a great financial loss so far, considering they purchased the site on a 100% mortgage, so (heaven forbid) they do get permission on Tuesday, I think local residents need to be aware that this may become a very shabby build indeed. What they say they will build and what they ACTUALLY do build may be 2 different things.  I am convinced these properties were never meant to be sold, but will be let to housing association residents, so they will build as cheaply and as simply as possible.  A simple Google of Freeds throws up what they do with their properties.......mainly buying, developing and renting. I believe local residents were led to believe this new development would be for sale as family homes but look carefully at the plans and one can see they are far too small.  They have failed in their obligation to compensate the former tenant of the workshops attached to the main house of his legal stautory payment on vacation of the premises. The former tenant is now having to pursue his stautory claim through very expensive legal action, which they can ill afford but will NOT give up on this cowboy bunch of developers. They do NOT keep to their word and should not be trusted.  If Freeds are given permission this coming Tuesday, I advise all residents in the locality to keep a very close eye on what actually does get built on this site.  I agree with Mr. Buckingham, this building can be saved and developed in a sympathetic way. If Freeds have their way, it will become a shabby, unsightly developmentYou only have to take a look at 107-111 Churchfield Road to see the bland type of development this company build. Although in this case it was built by Palmfield.......Same director as Freeds (and many others now and in the past).....Mr Ariel Miller.

Ellie Rose ● 5260d

David.You have encapsulated what I have been thinking for a while about Acton.Even in the short time I have been here, much of Acton’s Victorian and Edwardian infrastructure has either been threatened or demolished. The old tram shed has gone, the swimming baths are about to go and I only recently discovered  there was a Victorian Church on the corner of Spencer Road until the early 1980s (now converted into flats).Now 91 Shakespeare Road is under threat and I wonder what will happen to the Magistrates Court currently up for sale.In my view Acton has been guilty of being careless with its heritage and has combined this with a lack of imagination.  While in Acton we are about to knock down our historic swimming pool in Kentish Town the Pancras Baths have just under-gone a major restoration and redevelopment. See below.http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/jul/26/kentish-town-baths-restored-openIf you start looking at historic photographs it gets really depressing. Look at the attached photo of the Churchfield Road  a century ago and ask yourself – is what we have now, progress?http://www.actonw3.com/default.asp?section=community&link=http://appasp.ActonW3.com/server/app/forum/default.asp?site=4I’m not opposed to demolishing buildings – but operate on the principle that if you knock something down you should be confident you are replacing it with something better. I love modern architecture but lots of what is being built recently comes out of the Legoland school of design.I am going to TRY and be there on Tuesday to oppose the demolition of 91 Shakespeare although work commitments are currently making it difficult.Otherwise I think it  is important to think strategically about what is happening.  As one councillor put it to me – Chiswick is now full up  which now makes Acton the number one destination of choice for speculative  developers.  So watch this space for future attacks on Acton’s heritage.

Richard Grange ● 5260d

Is this what you tried to download?If you start looking at historic photographs it gets really depressing. Look at the attached photo of the Churchfield Road  a century ago and ask yourself – is what we have now, progress?

Nicola Howard ● 5260d

I have found this, just hope it copies over.

Nicola Howard ● 5260d

The picture I was trying (and failed) to attach a link for is from a post by Jim Lawes on an old forum thread under the heading 'The "lost church on the corner of Churchfield Road"I don't know how to embed photos - but the photo really makes you think. Churchfield Road is unrecogniseable.

Richard Grange ● 5260d

'The "lost church on the corner of Churchfield Road"Found it !This church was once on the corner of Churchfield Road and Spencer Road.

Fred Bray ● 5260d

Wow, that's quite an impressive church! Such a shame it's gone.

Kim Bobsin ● 5259d

Can anyone give an update?

Dee Cook ● 5258d

It's happening now I think.

Sara Nathan ● 5258d

Hi FredThis is not the picture. It is on the lost church thread and Jim Laws posted. It shows someone cycling past the end of Spencer Road - (Frankly the street is barely recogniseable). I'm sorry not ot be able to post it myself. I am a bit of a techno-idiot.

Richard Grange ● 5258d

Here you are.  The same church!   

Fred Bray ● 5258d

View Larger Map

Fred Bray ● 5258d

That's the picture!I reckon the bloke on the bike would be shocked if he saw what's been done to the Churchfield Road since his time.

Richard Grange ● 5258d

" I reckon the bloke on the bike would be shocked if he saw what's been done to the Churchfield Road since his time.  "Just as shocked as those living nearby would be today, if a developer got permission to demolish the flats on that corner, and replace them with a building THAT high!!  . . . . (Oooops !! Hope I haven't given them any ideas !! )

Fred Bray ● 5258d

Hi again - some info on the appeal from Tuesday which took the whole day... We had a pretty good showing - around twenty people tho' some unsurprisingly couldn't stay the whole day.  Unfortunately Mark Deitch has been unable to continue running his campaign to save the site so we've been improvising. Councillor Guillaid (sp?) came along and David Bays from Acton History Society and the CCA who both added valuable points and weight to the proceedings.  Most people spoke at some point giving some strong arguments on all the aspects.  The inspector's decision will be in the next 5 to 7 weeks. Hard to anticipate the outcome but it transpired that no emails from objectors had got through online so the inspector asked for everyone to re-submit by next Monday. An email has gone off to all of Mark's old list but there may be others here who need to know - please see below....Dear All.It transpires from the Appeal Hearing on Tuesday 24th April that none of our objection emails were received by Ealing Council,  therefore giving us a chance to resubmit them.  They have to be in by Monday 30th April to the email address below.Here are the main points to remind you.1.  The danger of access to and from the car stacker.  To drive into it and and out from it on an incline or even a level surface would mean having to position the car well onto the pavement before you could see any traffic or pedestrians.  You would also have to accelerate to get out which will make matters even more dangerous and you could not turn until well into the middle of the road.2.  The fact that a landmark Victorian building very much part of the Victorian Shakespeare Road and therefore of Poets Corner is to be demolished and replaced by faux Victoriana poorly designed houses totally out of keeping with the rest of the street.3.  The overdevelopment of the site.  Where clearly to fit in with the rest of the street 3 houses should be built they intend to put in 3 houses plus 3 flats.  It is too dense for the plot and the accommadation inside the houses is sub standard with small rooms not fit for purpose (family living)  The houses themselves are very narrow and would not appeal to the family market at which they are aimed.Please do write your emails and send them in because every little helps!!!This is the address to send them to: teamp6@pins.gsi.gov.ukAppeal reference 2166894Heading for the email.  URGENT AS REQUESTED BY THE INSPECTORTa ta for nowEmily

David Buckingham ● 5256d

I've already sent one in from the CCA,David.

Sara Nathan ● 5256d

I just spent 10 mins putting together an email to teamsp6@pins.gsi.gov.uk but it bounced back. Can anyone provide an email address which works, please?

Clare Gittins ● 5255d

teamp6@pins.gsi.gov.uk I used this one yesterday and got a receipt very soon afterwards.Try again?

Sara Nathan ● 5255d

Oops. Got the email address slightly wrong.. Never helps. Tried again and seems to have worked. Correct email address is teamp6@pins.gsi.gov.uk

Clare Gittins ● 5255d

You can now also belatedly see and perhaps pass on to any possible interested parties Mark Deitch's excellent brief video superimposing the proposal over the existing building which Nicola posted by going on uTube and entering: Save 91 Shakespeare Road Thanks for the nudge Nicola.

David Buckingham ● 5255d

Your welcome.  Hope it helps the cause.  Good Luck.

Nicola Howard ● 5255d

Re-post it so that it is easier t find.

Nicola Howard ● 5255d

I ought to point out the uTube graphic which illustrates the first application has been superceded by the revised proposal which however still retains the overall substance and characteristics of the original... 1. on the left of the front elevation there is now a one metre gap to give easement to the gable end of No.87, reducing the scale of each unit even more - so even more cramped2. the half-dormers have been removed and replaced with rooflights 3. the three flats are now two  The car stacker has prevailed so far, behind the garage door on the right down a ramp, although there are strong objections to vehicles exiting due to a blind spot when trying to look past No.93, which would require the car to advance across the pavement, forwards or backwards, endangering pedestrians who would often be schoolchildren, before visibility down the road was achieved.There is a studio flat which is substandard by planning guidelines, and the houses have three bedrooms with a token spacious 'dressing room' to avoid the regulations for four-bedroom houses. With the ground floor having a kitchen-diner too small for practicality the lounge would need to be partly used as a diner - not designed for say 4-6 person family use, more suited to an HMO (house of multiple occupation) ie renting out individual rooms and having a utilitarian kitchen plus common lounge. This would mean the occupancy was short-term renting and render the three-car stacker irrelevant to the needs of independent occupants.Another significant incidental is that No.91 is actually conjoined with No.93 giving some very tricky party wall issues, with major exposure and disruption for the owner of 93 during the extensive building works along with loss of light, unquantifiable disturbance from the stacker and revving cars on the ramp next door at whatever time of night or day once completed.One quirky point - there are solar panels on the roof facing east - which would be useless as it is critical especially in this country to face them south at the right angle for them to have any heating impact.  No such roof exists here.  I suspect the developers are gaining some undeserved credit for this pc gesture....doesn't really add up.

David Buckingham ● 5255d

Just bumped into Mark in Lavelli's - his last day as an Actonian.And he says the developers lost on appeal again. And that next time - if there is a next time - they have to pay full fees.Anyone got the whole story?

Sara Nathan ● 5199d

Where are we likely to find this info Sara ??

Ellie Rose ● 5199d

I suppose in the planning portal but Mark said he would be posting something round - just not sure when

Sara Nathan ● 5199d

I tried to look at the planning portal but searching for the property only brings up the application from 2011 so not much use.

Sarah Harris ● 5199d

Just been pointed out that there is yet another application for planning permission for this site. This time for three houses and two flats.So it looks like they have neither given up nor gone bust.Councillor Gulaid has been saying the council is about to buy the site. I wonder how true that isThe application is on PP/2012/2550Does the lobby/campaign have to swing back into action or is this version substantially better?

Sara Nathan ● 5173d

Councillor Gulaid has been saying the council is about to buy the site. I wonder how true that isIf the council buy the site, what plans do they have and, who's paying for it?

Nicola Howard ● 5173d

There was a thought of using it to help Derwentwater's capacity problem.I wonder if he actually DID anything

Sara Nathan ● 5173d

Sounds like a good idea but, we could be in for another, great betrayal.

Nicola Howard ● 5173d

Having looked at the new submission, There are a couple of 'discrepencies' (untruths?) in the new application which need looking into. I shall email the local councillors and the planning officer....Perhaps Freeds thought these woulden't be noticed...........

Ellie Rose ● 5173d

I am happy to object for the third time. Will cut-and-paste previous objections and bring further objections should any new ones arise out of the latest planning document.Frankly i am quite content to continue this ad infinitum - just in case the developers were thinking of tryng to "bore" the opposition into submission.

Richard Grange ● 5173d

I'm sure they are!It's a conventional tactic which I think my pet developer - the Marquess of Salisbury - is just trying on my other favourite campaign.

Sara Nathan ● 5173d

The planning officer in charge says he hasn't even looked at the application yet so can't advise on what if anything is different about this iteration.Nor has he responded to my request for the matter to go to the planning committee and not be delegated.Other people may need to contact planning or the councillors (especially Dan Crawford who is right off me because I didn't credit him fully in an article about the Oaks development meeting!) or Abdullah Gulaid who is on the planning committee.

Sara Nathan ● 5172d

Do keep objecting everyone! In full. Cut and paste is fine. It's generating a long list of clear arguements that counts. And dont assume you can only make one objection per address, e.g. if one of you does a long objection, it's fine for your mortgage partner/s to do a similar one, or a one page if that's the only amount of time they can give. Some years ago a garden plot (full of big trees and foxes) opposite my home started with an application for 12 flats, then 9, and eventually became 2 detached houses.And beware of revisions to plans that have been turned down, being passed without local residents being made aware of revised application. Happened here, residents weren't written to by council on the basis it was a revision rather than new application. Meanwhile residents thought everything was okay cos last application (that the council had written to them about) had been thrown out.Good luck everyone. It's worth persevering.

S Bradford ● 5171d

And don't forget to lobby your local councillors and the planning officer:Councillors:abdullah.gulaid@ealing.gov.ukdaniel.crawford@ealing.gov.ukPlanning Officer:LeeP@ealing.gov.ukThese developers need to be watched every step of the way. What they 'say' they will build and what they actually 'do' build could well be 2 different things.Has anyone compared the new application to the previous ones that were refused on 2 appeals ? and if so, in what way are the new plans amended /different?

Ellie Rose ● 5171d

For anyone interested in writing to the case officer, it seems this has now mysteriously changed from Peter Lee to Brian Conlon.....

Ellie Rose ● 5166d

But Councillor Gulaid assures me that it will definitely go to the planning meeting.Though I dont know whichWho is running the residents' campaign this time?

Sara Nathan ● 5165d

It appears that we cant get access to Ealing.Gov portal to raise concerns about this. Whoever put up posters or is in charge of this can they tell us of another way to raise our concerns.I have tried the web page listed and cant get access as I beleive Ealing have handily closed web site for maintenence.Cheersjon

Jon Osborne ● 5154d

Jon.You can contact them by telephone on 020 8525 6600 .......9am-5pmoremail: planning@ealing.gov.ukSince we can't put forward our views, and the deadline is 8th August, I think Ealing should lengthen the deadline.I have noticed on the new application by Freeds, that they have re-named the property at 91, 'ROSEBANK MOTORS GARAGE' and the property became vacant on 28-02-2012. This was never on any of the previous applications.Both these changes on the application are totally wrong !!Rosebank Motors only occupied part of 89 and vacated the premises on 31-10-2011.I believe this is a misrepresentation on the new application and wonder what these developers have 'up their sleeve' now. Surely if they have falsified the facts on the application, it should be made void.The case officer has also myseriously been changed from Peter Lee to Brian Conlon.

Ellie Rose ● 5154d

I have just submitted the Churchfield Community Association letter opposing this plan.Isent it to planning@ ealing etc and to Councillor Gulaid who is on the planning committee.It should go in the documents, right at the top but as the council didnt even notify us of this application - though we have responded to both teh pprevious ones, I'm not hopeful.Anyone know when the meeting is?

Sara Nathan ● 5153d

Yes - please can any details of meetings - and who to complain to etc - be posted here. I have been waiting for a letter of notification from the council - but so far received nothing.

Richard Grange ● 5152d

Yes - please can any details of meetings - and who to complain to etc - be posted here. I have been waiting for a letter of notification from the council - but so far received nothing.

Richard Grange ● 5152d

The timing of this (during school holidays when many locals are away) plus the fact that so many people haven't been notified seems highly suspicious.

Clare Gittins ● 5152d

Have submitted cca rejection of proposals and had it acknowledged twice - so someone is on it.No idea when the site visit or planning committee are. Cllr Gulaid should know

Sara Nathan ● 5150d