Forum Topic

Gail Peters · 07/19/2013 17:42:00

new.ActonW3.com Communtity Forum Topic posting

THE OAKS SHOPPING CENTRE - new planning application

Received copy of new notification of a planning application from Ealing Council Planning Services a few days ago - will type the main paragraphs below:Our ref: PP/2012/3154Date: 11 July 2013The proposal: Partial refurbishment, demolition and redevelopment of shopping centre to provide 2 storey residential accommodation fronting Hooper's Mews, 5 storey accommodation fronting Churchfield Road (retail on ground floor with residential above), 9 storey accommodation on the corner of Churchfield Road former burial ground and 8 storey residential accommodation with a basement level across the remainder of the site. New foodstore on basement level (4,879 sq m) together with 4 new retail units (14 sq m, 78 sq m, 16 sq m and 43 sq m), 6 refurbished units (2,444 sq m), 142 residential units (52 x 1 bed, 50 x 2 bed, 39 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed) and ancillary service yard, storage, plant, circulation space, amenity space and play space, provision of 227 car parking spaces, including 15 disabled spaces (197 retail and 30 residential), 284 cycle parking spaces (84 retail, 14 employee and 186 residential), with vehicular access from Churchill Road and access to the residential units off Churchill Road ...FURTHER INFORMATIONYou may see further details of the application, case officer, plans and other documents on the council's website athttp://www.pam.ealing.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServletor by visiting: Customer Reception, Ealing Council, Perceval House, 14-16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing W5 2HL.HOW TO COMMENTIn order for the Council to take your views into account, they must be in writing, include a name and address, and received no later than 21 days from the date of this letter. You may comment online using http://www.pam.ealing.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet insert PP/2012/3154 and follow links to 'Comment on this planning application', by e-mail at planning@ealing.gov.uk , or by post quoting the references and site address, to Planning Services at:Ealing Council Planning ServicesPerceval House14-16 Uxbrdge RoadLondon W5 2HLComments received will not be acknowledged.

Gail Peters ● 4806d60 Comments

So we've 21 days to comment on a major planning application, conveniently/cynically submitted as many people go on their summer hols. Well, I suppose it's take out the previous objection, change the dates and tweak a bit (" a 9 storey tower is completely out of character" instead of "an 11 storey tower is completely out of character").

Vlod Barchuk ● 4806d

There are about 13 days to make a comment as it is 21 days from the 11th July!

Gail Peters ● 4806d

As they submitted 106 documents here are the key onesLink to the main Design Document:http://www.pam.ealing.gov.uk/PlanNet/documentstore%5CDC11123399-71-1_AF_A.PDFHeritage statement:http://www.pam.ealing.gov.uk/PlanNet/documentstore%5CDC11123399-78-1_AF_A.PDFIt continues to be an over-sized monolithic monstrosity, failing to integrate with, and dwarfing the surrounding buildings. The communal gardens are raised a few stories off the ground so fail to improve the public realm as they try to accommodate three stories of car-park. The oak tree facade looks cheap and tacky and will look more so after a few years of neglect.What are other comments are people submitting?

Matt Smith ● 4806d

The CCA is opposed to a gated community in our midst. We think its too big and object to the tower that has re-appeared on Churchfield Road. We think there should be a through route to the high street as per the original spec.But at least there is 22% affordable housing which us a move in the right direction.Ealing civic society more opposed even.

Sara Nathan ● 4806d

Please be aware that while the summary of the scheme (including in the letter sent to us all) says that it features a 9 storey tower, the detailed plans show that this is actually an 11 storey tower. Totally misleading!

Gemma Peck ● 4805d

I have written to the Council asking them to reissue the letter to residents regarding this application and extend the deadline for comment accordingly. Given that many residents' main concern has been the height of this tower it is outrageous that the summary in the letter is misleading about its true height.See p73 of the design and access statement http://www.pam.ealing.gov.uk/PlanNet/documentstore/DC11123399-72-1_AF_A.PDF The tower is 11 storeys, not 9 as implied in the letter.

Gemma Peck ● 4805d

Seems that you folks are in line for some of the over-kill style developments that are also planned for Brentford.I wonder how many of the new flats will be bought buy cash buyers,mainly from overseas,as an investment.Some will even be left empty I shouldn't wonder which would please LBE no end.All that CT and no need people to provide sevices for...whilst locals are probably priced out of the market.

Keith Iddon ● 4805d

I notice the related planning application for demolition of the western burial ground wall is still pending (searchable under PP/2012/3155) – worth objecting to that too if you've not already done so...

Jake Woodward ● 4805d

Jake, I've just objected to the burial ground application.I think that ground is a superb example of the history of Acton. I wasn't that pleased when they put the new path in there. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but I believe we should not be moving the dead - it's not an unrealized real estate opportunity - it's our history.Carl

Carl Tamboli ● 4804d

VLod - you must read page 74 of the detailed design proposal - its very clear that they are still proposing an 11 story tower. It wasn't the fact it looked like a persiscope we objected to, it was the monstrous massing of it peering down Derwentwater Road. In an identical fashion to the "revised" plans. I genuinely cannot see any part of this that was objected to before that appears to have been materially changed after being thrown out last time. Are they really that stupid?. Has a deal been done?

Charlie Mawer ● 4803d

Moving it back to Churchfield road is outrageous. the developer told us last week - wholly clearly - that it was to be nine storeys.I will ask the PR lady.

Sara Nathan ● 4803d

I asked the PR about nine versus eleven floors and she responded that it was definitely nine. And cited this:"Partial refurbishment, demolition and redevelopment of shopping centre to provide 2 storey residential accommodation fronting Hooper’s Mews, 5 storey accommodation fronting Churchfield Road (retail on ground floor with residential above), 9 storey accommodation to the corner of Churchfield Road former burial ground and 8 storey residential accommodation with a basement level across the remainder of the site. New foodstore to basement level (4,879 sq m) together with 4 new retail units (14 sq m, 78 sq m, 16 sq m and 43 sq m), 6 refurbished units (2,444 sq m), 142 residential units (52 x 1 bed, 50 x 2 bed, 39 x 3 bed and 1 x 4 bed) and ancillary service yard, storage, plant, circulation space, amenity space and play space, provision of 227 car parking spaces, including 15 disabled spaces (197 retail and 30 residential), 284 cycle parking spaces (84 retail, 14 employee and 186 residential), with vehicular access from Churchfield Road and access to the residential units off Churchfield Road, Hooper's Mews and former burial ground. Provision of two pedestrian links between High Street and former burial ground (Revised Description of Development)"Maybe 105 documents was too much for them too!

Sara Nathan ● 4803d

I now have a copy of the NEW Design and Access statement.It's 45 pages and a pdf.Will the technology allow it to be posted here? If so, any idea how?T'isnt my job to send it out to the whole forum individually!

Sara Nathan ● 4803d

Apologies for length - no time to write anything shorter... These documents seem out of date, referring to the 2012 proposals. This summer's proposed revision has virtually identical massing and height but with cosmetic changes like glazing the top two floors in the mode of Tate Modern to try to reduce the apparent height. The "oaks" screen has long gone.At this stage I think the focus needs to be on the overall concept rather than detail about the visual appearance. As Sara has reiterated they are proposing a gated community. It would be an enormous and permanent block on the heart of Acton which instead could have a master plan that embraces the potential of a public space/town square here - opening up, linking and regenerating Acton High Street and Churchfield Road. A town square could be a magnet for social, cultural and commercial use as well as residential; a gated community in that location would be a deterrent to Acton's regeneration.I think there's a case for the area to be sold in smaller footprints/units/plots allowing for developing public space, rather than being treated as one giant development. This would allow flexibility and more varied, organic responses, rather than unwieldy commitments like eg a huge underground supermarket. I still believe a car park would be more suitably housed in that underground space, opening up daylight space for a 24 hour thoroughfare and commercial and residential development at ground level and avoiding the central multi-storey car park block. The developers claim this is not workable, but I’ve yet to hear the argument why. Last year the developers’ acknowledged they have a longer term (5 year?) plan which includes a further gated community to the south of the burial ground, at the same density as the present proposal. It explains why that area is completely undeveloped and left fallow in this scheme. It also explains why they reject a lower density proposal that takes in that area and includes part of an underground car park.The development should be viable and as self-sustaining as possible rather than a drain on resources. If necessary including high rise, judiciously located and designed. The town square approach presents better social and commercial potential than their proposal. If people find it more attractive there is a good chance of a virtuous cycle.Ealing Planning have had an Acton policy for many years that specifically pursues "a new community hub in the town centre" (Ealing SPD9 Legal Agreements, Planning Obligations July 2007, p40). THIS IS THE TOWN CENTRE. They also specify the need for a strong link between Churchfield Rd and the High St. Have a look at Acton Town Centre Development Framework. Ealing Planning Dept needs to stick to their own vision and promise for Acton's regeneration which is naturally centred on this location, by their own admission.This is in addition to planning commitments to local park improvements which might include the burial ground without desecration. It would be interesting for the developers and planners to be more proactive in getting Rev. David Brammer's input on how he sees the future protection and improvement of this key element in the centre of Acton. They don't appear to have engaged him in discussion meaningfully. The whole project lacks anyone at the tiller to steer it in a holistic way - a role that you would expect someone at Ealing Planning to take.Last year there was at least a public exhibition and one or two meetings of various interested parties. This year it appears nothing is planned. Last year the same holiday schedule deadline in August was postponed by the council to allow people time to respond. This year it's almost by default that any information is getting out there. I have links to relevant documents on my inappropriately named Oaks website www.TheOaksAlternative.co.uk. A better name might be ActonAgora, after the ancient greek town concept. You can also watch a 3 minute video of an alternative approach and leave comments there, you never know who's looking... but the most important thing is obviously to leave your reactions on the application website over the next week.

David Buckingham ● 4803d

The Ealing planning officer has sent me almost all the current documents - apart from one set of backing ones which he says is too big. If you would like me to forward them to you, please DM me with your email address and I will do so.It's 3 or 4 very chunky emails

Sara Nathan ● 4802d

It's good of you to offer to do this Sara but it's ridiculous that they can't co-ordinate the upload of the correct documents to the planning portal. For something this important! Surely to run a successful planning application process the updated documents need to have been on the site for a minimum amount of time without this backdrop of confusion? People are currently reacting and objecting to two separate planning proposals.

Jake Woodward ● 4802d

I've had an email from the PR woman to say Ealing planning tells her that the site has been reorganised so it shows what is up to date. Haven't checked myself...But that may obviate the need for mass mailings, thanks Jake!

Sara Nathan ● 4802d

Am I reading this correctly? The documents online, which I spent several hours ploughing through, were out of date?!!!!! Aaaaaargh. Now I'm even more peed off with the council and even more unclear how tall this thing is...

Gemma Peck ● 4802d

It's nine storeys - which is still too much. the top storey or two are recessed and glass-clad.And it is in the wrong place (if it should exist at all) right on Churchfield Road making a "statement" which is overloud.I'd hate it much less at the centre or back of the development but the developers, naturally enough want it to dominate/blight the light and life of non-residents not the people buying off them.

Sara Nathan ● 4802d

Surely the fact that for a crucial period of consultation the wrong documentation has been made available via the council's own website should be grounds for an extension on the time available for comment...Vlod any view on that who to make representations to. personally of course as a Derwentwater Rd resident I would prefer any height to be set back into the middle of the development rather than peering obtrusively down our road, so I find it interesting that the council in the interim phase rejected just a scheme (presumably because it could be seen from the High Street?). hang the residents along Churchfield road - as long as you can't see it from the High Street everything is okay

Charlie Mawer ● 4802d

I have written with all the objections I could think of.. Interestingly my letter does not say 9 stories -residential as yours does Sara but 8?? when now having read other posts it is in fact still 11.one of the things I said was what's in it for the locals? then answered my own question sod all.....Hideous

Jane Willingale ● 4802d

Not 11 storeys - genuinely I think - but I so agree - hellish confusing and, as Charlie says, probably grounds for increased length of consultation.Will ask...

Sara Nathan ● 4802d

Request for extension sent:"for all the information Steve. But, as others on the local forum are pointing out, this consultation is for a very short period, scheduled over the holiday months when many residents are away – which may be a coincidence but looks like a cunning plan to minimise responses. Plus the documents were so muddled on the site that we have had to jump through hoops to find and distribute them....which diminishes the response time. And, of course, we were not alerted to the consultation – which as a local representative group, we should have been. So I am requesting, on behalf of the Churchfield Community Association, a formal extension to the consultation period. I think other local residents will appreciate that too.many thanks Sara

Sara Nathan ● 4802d

Looks like we will get a ten day formal extension but the planning officer says late submissions are "always considered and reported to the committee."Also, there will be a site visit the Saturday before the meeting... of which we should be notified. though I have no idea when. And I am not around early September.

Sara Nathan ● 4802d

I have written to the planning officer. AustinS@ealing.gov.uk. Also copied proposal to planning@ealing.gov.uk and to local councillors and to Vlod Barchuk. I almost didn't do it because I have too much going on at the moment, but this is such an important issue. If anyone short of time would like to use my brief email of protest in order to register their dismay, please email clare.gittins@gmail.com and I will forward my email to Steve Austin.

Clare Gittins ● 4802d

Saving the pleasure of looking at the plans for the weekend!This is not a new application, but a revise of the previous one that was withdrawn, which seems to have allowed the developer to shorten the application process (normally 13 weeks to decide a major application, 8 weeks for common or garden ones). Given the shenanigans about planning process central Ealing, this looks like sharp practice and lobbying councillors to lobby the planners to extend the consulatation process might be an idea.

Vlod Barchuk ● 4801d

I have.They didn't reply.Or not yet anyhow.

Sara Nathan ● 4801d

Planning confirm formally that the consultation closes on the 16th. But they will look at stuff after that

Sara Nathan ● 4796d

We have about 2 weeks to protest this latest round of 'changes'. I suggest that we put the details to one side (Oaks screen, corner tower, etc.) for now and concentrate on the really big issue - that we don't want a gated community right in the heart of Acton. If the centre of the development could be opened up to public access (and such access would go down to the High Street), that would satisfy many of our main objections. The development would not be so monumental and would involve itself with the community surrounding it.I will be making this my main objection to the plans at the moment. I think the developers keep making changes to the detail so that we will be swamped by them. In the meantime, the main issue remains unaddressed.Does anyone know the easiest way to send in an objection to the Planning Department? I did find out that the Oaks' reference no. is PP/2012/3154, but I've been going round in circles trying to discover if there is a convenient online form to fill in. If we can find this out, or discover the least time-consuming way of objecting another way, we can publicise this in the little time we have left so that the council receives as many objections from the community as possible.And remember: it's the big picture we should be concentrating on now!

Nancy Duin ● 4793d

One can simply email objections to planning@ealing.gov.uk; as long as the reference number is included it will be clear to what it relates and one has a record of what has been sent. I'm not sure having a gated community is a valid planning reason to object to an application, so that won't do. One still needs to refer to matters of height, massing, density, transport if one wants to make objections to this application that give valid planning reasons for refusal.

Vlod Barchuk ● 4793d

My particular bugbear is the beastly tower - now back on Churchfield road and wholly disproportionate to the surroundings - even if nine storeys with the top two recessed.I thought we had won this last time round so it's very frustrating.I've asked the planning officer about why there is no form - and why the CCA is STILL not on the consultee list.But he is away until well after the deadline for responses - which makes me wonder why it couldn't have been the end of August.

Sara Nathan ● 4793d

We sent an email to planning@ealing.gov.uk with the reference number of another planning application + the officer in charge in the title, sent them a reminder a week later, called three times. Getting closer to the end of consultation time as days without hearing anything back pass....Called Ealing again today at 16:57, offices were already closed. We finally got a call back but "they couldn't find the original email" just the third one asking when will we get a call back....Basically, do not assume that because you write the reference number they will read your email. They don't seem capable of finding emails in an inbox.

Alex White ● 4793d

Ealing council's own declared aims and vision as set out in their Acton Town Centre Development Framework aspire to...."... a revitalised town centre, attractive and good quality public realm, improve accessibility, movement and linkages within Acton Town Centre, encouraging visitors to stay longer... diverse mixed retail, leisure and community experience... creation of better pedestrian north-south linkages between Churchfield Rd and the High St...etc etc " ... ... all of which would be forever blocked and negated by the no-go area / gated community where a town square / street / avenue could be. Surely this adds up to a valid objection in planning's own terms.

David Buckingham ● 4793d

If Vlod says it doesn't, he's probably right.I can't understand why there isn't the usual response form - or how its going to get sorted with the case officer away until August 23rd.

Sara Nathan ● 4793d

Seems obvious - if Ealing council is still refusing to prolong the consultation period for such a crucial development - that someone is trying to shoo this in at a time of year when it's always difficult to raise public awareness.

Clare Gittins ● 4793d

David, how did the town hall meeting go, sorry I couldn't make it. Could a Neighbourhood Plan for Acton be created fast enough to impact on planning decisions re the town centre?

Charlie Mawer ● 4793d

This is something Steve Flynn at Acton Forum organised. Bob Gurd filled us in on the pretty long drawn-out mechanics - could take 6 months to get up and running. Long term theoretically it could be an ideal vehicle, tho some are justifiably sceptical on the return for hours put in. I wrote to Steve and Rachel afterwards suggesting that as a naissant Neighbourhood Plan it might be a valid pressure group on the decision making process even though it hasn't jumped through all the hoops.Meanwhile for the Oaks some of us are talking about an action/working group set up. One major immediate urgent concern is the number of people who are unaware of the whole scheme, so any ideas at all for increasing awareness are big on the agenda. Local celebrities? Ealing Gazette are interested in doing another piece and I've written to Angie Bray, as have a few others. I've written remonstrating to the planners again about the holiday timing and suggesting a further extension even beyond Sara's, especially as she says, as Steve Austin is away until 23rd Aug anyway. While he's away he has redirected mail to PlanningEast@ealing.gov.uk. The planning committee site meeting is sometime in September, not sure when.

David Buckingham ● 4792d

I think there could be some good stunts we could pull off. for example I was wondering about an attempt to create a 9 storey tower of cardboard boxes on the Oaks car park to illustrate what is being proposed...inevitably doomed to failure but would probably make for some good press and pr. When would be best to do it though - I would think probably nearer to a site visit/planning vote than now?

Charlie Mawer ● 4792d

Sara Nathan got a response from the planning department about the online response form. They say that 'the link to this can be found below the application information after the applicant name' but I certainly have been unable to find it. However, they also provided a convenient link to online form itself:http://www.pam.ealing.gov.uk/portal/servlets/PlanningComments?REFNO=PP/2012/3154So PLEASE use this to register your feelings about the proposed Oaks development. The more individual responses they get, the more of an effect yours will have.

Nancy Duin ● 4792d

If somebody has the time, could they put a script that we could cut and paste into the comments box, ensuring that we can get rid of the tower block and gated part, restricting the access to AHS.Just hope that a certain person has nothing to do with the planning application, considering how that person once betrayed people. No name mentioned but, I think we know who I mean.

Nikki Howard ● 4792d

Haven't a clue who you mean - too elliptical for me.

Sara Nathan ● 4792d

Just think of it as, who have I grassed up on the forum.

Nikki Howard ● 4792d

Hi EveryoneI was under the impression the close date for comments was last Wednesday. That is what is written on the council website.I have also written an email to Angie Bray requesting help in getting an extension to the comment period. No response for over a week now.In terms of raising awareness, something as simple as putting flyers through doors could be a very good start. Particularly so if we are able to highlight concerns unique to different areas in Acton.I've copied below what I have submitted. I did not have ample time to read through all 106 documents, so I could not comment as thoroughly as I wanted to regarding the traffic flow - for some streets including Grove road this is estimated to increase by up to 31%. The plans state they will assess changes to junctions after completion of the project. I did spend quite a bit of time reading the visual impact study, which made me rather angry.Here are my comments, please feel free to copy and amend and reuse.http://www.pam.ealing.gov.uk/portal/servlets/PlanningComments?REFNO=PP/2012/3154***The revised development proposal remains unsuitable for the following reasons:· The height, mass and style of the development is out of context with the surrounding area. The mass of the development will infringe upon open spaces· The increase in traffic levels as a result of the retail and residential space will have a significant negative impact on surrounding residential streets· The proposed development fails to create a ‘town centre’ but rather creates a closed and gated community The height, mass and style of the development is out of context with the surrounding areaThe proposed development, despite most recent revision continues to be entirely out of keeping with local context. The scale of the development is inappropriate while the proposed 11 story tower block (what is effectively a 3 storey ground floor) protrudes so much above surrounding context as to make it completely inappropriate for the residential, Victorian area in which it would sit.The design itself is neither in keeping with nor sympathetic to the character of the surrounding buildings, particularly those within the conservation area. Claims that the modern design creates a ‘beautiful juxtaposition’ to the Victorian architecture are the subjective views of the developer and inconsistent with the expressed opinion of local residents.Acton, while being an urban area, currently enjoys open spaces as a result of the existing architecture, which in the area in question features buildings no more than 4 stories in height. The exception, to this being St. Mary’s Church, which serves as a focal point for the town centre and is in keeping with existing architecture.These open spaces are enjoyed by residents. As a resident and home owner I do not seek to create a contrast to open spaces by way of large, ungainly and out of context architecture as so proposed.Response the Visual Impact Study2.4. The photographs here are misleading in terms of the scale of the proposed development. The actual development would not be ‘peripheral’ as so claimed but would dominate the landscape from this view. 2.7. The claim that ‘proposals step up and away from this [St. Mary’s Church] historic fabric so that the tower - removed by some distance – appears an integrated neighbour whilst nevertheless avoiding any overbearing or ill-effect.’ is not correct. The proposed tower by no way is integrated into any existing architecture. Nor is it complimentary. In fact, contrary to claims, the tower is exactly what it claims not to be: over-bearing and creating an ill-effect.2.10 Were the proposed development to be constructed as planned, the view from Derwentwater Road would be mal-affected. The claim that it would fill: ‘Yet another incongruous gap in the streetscape’ and that this area, which currently enjoys a clear and unobstructed view, is ‘requiring closure and visual stoppage… ‘ is completely out of keeping with the views of local residents. This statement makes a strong assumption that local residents desire to have any open area which currently offers a clear view to be blocked. In any urban area access to clear and unobstructed views of the natural landscape is something which is sought after and does not benefit from ‘stoppage’. Furthermore, the proposal, if developed, would as claimed create ‘a striking visual impact’, however not a welcome one as it is entirely out of keeping with the current character of the area.2.14 As a resident of Grove Road I am in complete disagreement with the assessment made in section 2.14 of the visual impact study. The open area offered by St. Mary’s Burial ground is a welcome one. It is not one that is in any way incongruous. Such a statement ignores the need for open spaces in any urban area. Furthermore, the claim that the visual impact of the proposed tower block would be ‘so negligible as to be virtually non-existent’ is not only untrue but ridiculous. This tower block would be an obstruction; unavoidable and an interruption in the views currently enjoyed from my home as well as St. Mary’s Burial Ground. The increase in traffic levels as a result of the retail and residential space will have a significant negative impact on surrounding residential streetsThe additional residential units and retail space will create an increase in traffic flows. As a resident of Grove Road we already have a growing issue with drivers using the road as a through-road from the high street to Churchfield Road. A reflection of this trend is the addition of a roundabout at Grove Road/Acton High Street last year.The impact study indicates a likely increase in traffic at junctions surrounding Grove Road in the double-digits as a result of the development. The proposed development would turn the residential Grove Road into a through-road with high levels of traffic. This would be a major and continuous disruption to the residents on Grove Road, who when they chose to move onto the road did so with the expectation of low traffic levels.The proposed development fails to create a ‘town centre’ but rather creates a closed and gated communityThe proposed site represents a fantastic regeneration opportunity for Acton. However, the proposed development is commercially motivated and does not meet the needs of the community.The proposed development closes access between Churchfield Road and Acton High Street when it should focus on opening the area up in order to create a functional community space. Such a design would encourage custom in the area as well as working to create a community feel. The proposed designs will have the opposite effect, reducing community interaction and increases the separation of Churchfield Road and Acton High Street.

Chantelle Arneaud ● 4792d

" I think there could be some good stunts we could pull off. for example I was wondering about an attempt to create a 9 storey tower . . . . . . . "Google may have already done the job ! !This is the street sign by the Oaks, I estimate it to be at least 30 feet high. For the proposed tower, picture a building at least, three times higher.Here's the Google Streetview link. :- http://goo.gl/maps/2n7o9
View Larger MapA link to the jpg. Or just grab it. :- http://tinyurl.com/3timesHigherThanThis

Fred Bray ● 4791d

Thanks ChantelleCopied, pasted, and, sent.

Nikki Howard ● 4791d

It's all very well to use Chantelle's submission as a guide. But our objections would have a lot more impact if we all wrote individual (i.e. different) letters/emails to the council, rather than just copying and pasting.

Nancy Duin ● 4790d

'Tis nice to have something to start with though - so far I have included a diatribe from you Nancy, a quote from the development plan consultation from last year and a bit of Chantelle - and it's still taking forever (which I don't have!)Certainly don't have the time/will to peruse all 106 documents.

Sara Nathan ● 4790d

PS - if minded to use Chantelle's as a draft/guide, please note that the new proposals specify a NINE storey tower - not an eleven storey one - if you get that wrong, I suppose the planning committee could use it as an excuse to disregard what you say.

Sara Nathan ● 4790d

Nancy's right: I don't often protest about things in writing, but was recently spurred to compose an entirely original letter because the 'powers that be' were dismissing complaints already received as a cut and paste campaign i.e. not original and easily dismissed. I know we're all busy people, but some attempt at originality is essential! (now for my composer's hat...)

Lorna Dodd ● 4790d

No, I think David is right; I haven't seen the new planning policy document that contains this. Good spot David.

Vlod Barchuk ● 4788d

Thanks Vlod. If it's true it's a shame the ActonW3 article didn't mention that the proposal ignores the planners' own Development Framework as above, which corresponds pretty much to local aspirations.Another recent quote (Feb 2013) from the council's own recently discovered (and scintillatingly named) 'Development Sites DPD Incorporating Minor Changes Submission Document EDS3' is even more detailed and uncompromising (quote):"Successful integration will depend on an innovative and creative layout that responds to size and structure of existing blocks within the town centre to avoid a monolithic and incongruous development. To support successful integration, proposals must provide an improved connection providing public access through the site that facilitates movement between the High Street and Churchfield Road. This should provide a legible, safe and attractive link that integrates with and improves the existing movement patterns of the town centre. Proposals should provide for active frontages to define the route, and explore the potential of the new connection to enhance the Burial Ground and intensify its use as a soft landscaped public space in the town centre. Care should be taken with the height and massing of buildings on all boundaries to ensure that the amenity of existing residential properties, the Burial Ground, and the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area are preserved. The scale of development to street frontages should be commensurate with the prevailing massing of the surrounding built form." (unquote)Thanks to http://lockedoutandboxedin.wordpress.com/ - a new website set up on The Oaks - for this gem.Unless I'm missing something the developers appear to be hoist by the planners' own petard. Presumably they have been discussing acceptability with the planners, so it seems surprising the proposal has got this far, considering this fresh thinking that has been done by the planners as recently as Feb 2013.There is also the major heritage issue regarding the graveyard implicitly acknowledged above - that the new development should ENHANCE the graveyard, as well as other heritage sites locally.

David Buckingham ● 4786d

Suggestion:In order to publicise this issue, posters advertising what's going on need to be posted on all the way along Churchfield Road.

dee cook ● 4786d

Only 6 days left to record your views about this development. Go the Ealing planning website and focus on the revised Design and Access Statement on Page 5, the revised Heritage statement on Page 6, and the revised Planning statement on Page 7. Derwentwater and Stuart road residents should look at the images on P18, P33, P20 and P23 Of the revised Design and Access Statement. We also need to consider the statement that 142 residential units (52x 1 beds, 50 x 2 beds, 39 x 3 beds and 1 x 4 beds) will only produce 270 residents and 28 children of primary school age. Really?? I consider that there would be at least 133 children of school age which would have an impact on school places. The children and adult residents would also have an impact on demand on local GP practices. Churchfield rd. would also suffer from a massive increase in traffic to and from the housing and supermarket units.

Alison Blake ● 4784d

http://lockedoutandboxedin.wordpress.com

Adrian Morrish ● 4784d

I am very confused about this planning application. The development can only proceed if the council sells the Churchfield Road Car Park. This is in the hands of the regeneration function of the council which also manages the planning process and the Local Development Framework - all reporting to the Leader of the Council Julian Bell. If we get the Oaks as envisaged it will be because the council (in the form of Cllr Bell) wills it. If the council wanted a more attractive scheme it has the power to make it happen - it doesn't seem to want to see its capital receipt reduced or pushed into the future. North Acton is getting a new (largely unwanted) piazza. Southall is getting a new car park. Acton town centre is getting a gated community. Cllr Bell is in charge.

Phil Taylor ● 4782d

http://www.ealinggazette.co.uk/ealing-news/local-ealing-news/2013/08/13/oaks-centre-plans-still-not-good-enough-64767-33722468/

Philippa Bond ● 4781d

Appendix B of the applicant’s design and access statement shows that they have exceeded the maximum allowable number of housing units per hectare (260): 311 if one takes into account the whole site or 480 if one only takes account of the areas of the site which is being developed for residential use.The density in terms of habitable rooms per hectare exceeds allowable levels by greater margins. The London Plan allows for densities of upto 700 habitable room per hectare on certain high density sites. With 422 habitable rooms, the density for the whole site is c920 habitable rooms per hectare and for the area being developed for residential the density level is c1,430 habitable rooms per hectare.These densities far exceed the London Plan allowable levels and anything that has ever been applied for in central Acton. The last application for development on this site (ref P/2006/3690 - 72 flats on the car parks only) proposed a density of c750 habitable rooms per hectare and this application was refused on several grounds, including density of development.The developer must be aware of the extent to which they're pushing beyond the guidance on density and so must the planners who've seen the application and yet they're submitting it.

Vlod Barchuk ● 4781d

It’s outrageous. Don't the planners even follow their own rules? How can you pack so many people into such a small pace without consequences? And what about the fact that the site is only being partly developed? We have no details on what the developer plans for the bottom bit (the quarter or third down near the High Street). Surely the whole site should be planned and developed as a whole rather than piecemeal?

Ross Bogert ● 4779d

7 storeys high. When on the Overground I noticed that the South Acton development next to the railway line are only 5 storeys high.To get an actual idea of what 7 storeys will look like in reality, take a train journey and take a look. To put 7 storeys of new build in a conservation area is a joke. This wouldn't happen in Chiswick. What must the Planning Department be thinking of the residents of Acton I wonder!

dee cook ● 4779d