I live in the naive hope that if a development is more attractive to the public at large it will by that token be better for the developer. I think it's just lazy, easy,short-term,short-range, short-sighted, blinkered, call-it-what-you-will thinking that produces monsters like this. A well-considered rational design response I believe is inherently mutually beneficial to all by definition... for my money Richard Rogers has eloquently proved it. (That should start something).Meanwhile, I'm attaching a few quotes from current planning policy guidelines for your delectation, which might make your eyes boggle, but for that reason is basic ammunition for letters to Boris et al - planners seemingly hoist by their own petard - except neither they nor the councillors nor so far Boris' office see it that way. That's what we're up against. letters to Boris: mayor@london.gov.uk Warning - this has grown - but it's all pertinent stuff - feel free to cherry-pick. Quotes from the DPD (Development Plan Document) Incorporating Minor Changes Submission Document EDS3, Dated Feb 2013, implemented Aug 2013 contains design principles pertaining specifically to The Oaks : This document clearly sets out a number of criteria which should be adhered to: 1. It " requires a comprehensive masterplan that realises the full potential of the site. A piecemeal approach is not acceptable.... " !The developers openly acknowledge there will be a phase two on the south side of the burial ground.2. " Successful integration will depend on an innovative and creative layout.... to avoid a monolithic and incongruous development " !! ...................................???3. " To support successful integration proposals must provide an improved connection providing public access through the site that facilitates movement between the High St and Churchfield Rd..... 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...." !!! Active means shops, cafes, business, functions etc. There is only one reason to go down the pathway in the proposal which is the supermarket, or to get through from one street to the other. See also Night-time Economy below.4. " 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." !!!!In refusing the proposed Arcadia development in central Ealing, the planning inspector pointed to the impact that a tall development would have on neighbouring conservation area, even though the proposed development was not itself in a conservation area. This is normal interpretation of conservation legislation.5. " Adequate access and servicing arrangements for commercial uses must be provided from Churchfield Road..." !!!!! Existing and future congestion problems in Churchfield Rd have been dismissed. It was parenthetically mentioned for the first time at the committee meeting that parking on that end of Churchfield Rd would have to be stopped to facilitate the lorries turning... not great for existing business.Further ammunition includes:Density limits have been dismissed as guidelines only. To summarise some complex calculations, these densities far exceed the London Plan allowable levels and anything that has ever been applied for in central Acton. The proposal is for 925 habitable rooms per hectare. The last application for development on part of this site (ref P/2006/3690, 72 flats) proposed a density of c750 habitable rooms per hectare and this application was refused by the planning committee on several grounds, including density of development.OverlookingPlanning policy is clear that there should be a distance of at least 21m separation between the windows of habitable rooms, so as to prevent overlooking. The distance between the proposed development and the buildings on the other side of Churchfield Rd is acknowledged as at between 17-20m, so again falls short of the minimum distance required.HeightThe proposed frontage is effect the same height as that proposed in the 2006 application for 72 flats on this site (P/2006/3690), which was rejected for, amongst other reasons, being ‘detrimental to the street”Light deprivationThe planning report does not acknowledge the significant detrimental impact that the development would have on sunlight levels in Churchfield Rd (the development would sit on the south side of the road and would be significantly taller than any other building on the south side of the road).In mid winter the sun in the UK is only about 18 degrees above the horizon - significant monolithic shadow for Churchfield Rd and the Burial Ground.Overall the scheme in this location is gross overdevelopment. A downsized version would be far more appropriate to this location. A large Waitrose Local would be welcome.With lower density the car park could go underground releasing ground level for a flexible approach to building above and crucially the spaces between buildings giving public realm. This would also avoid the risk of a too-big failed Waitrose white elephant underground space. (Access from the lower High St level could also be explored for some of the car park lorries and cars).(Technical point from this, only for the strong: the car parking provision is planned at an additional 50 cars more than what is there at the moment. Acton Morrisons at 2/3 the size of the proposed supermarket has around 250 spaces. Pro rata you'd therefore expect the new supermarket car park to have around 375 spaces. Then there is the current demand of 200. That means that where you'd expect demand for 575 or so spaces there will be 250. Bizarrely just that looks set up to fail. The figures also indicate the extra demand on Churchfield Rd. - and that's without the articulated deliveries and new residential 35 cars or so allowed for). Quote from CABE - On Supermarket-Led Development:"What local communities tell us is that a lot of supermarket - led development amounts to a large plain rectangular building and car park in the middle of town. This can actually undermine regeneration, local character and sense of place and compound traffic problems." See recent Evening Standard article by Tristram Hunt:On These New Public Spaces Quote from the Urban Task Force - Richard Rogers, John Prescott, Michael Heseltine:" Well designed... public spaces should be at the heart of any community. They are the foundation for public interaction and social integration and provide the sense of place essential to engender civic pride."Quote from The London Plan 2011" Open space in all its forms represents an important component of social infrastructure... an integral part of Policy 3.16.""boroughs should engage with local groups and communities to identify their needs... taking into account local context and character... taking a more bottom-up, participative and consensual approach."Quotes from Acton Town Centre Development Framework" Objectives: to create an attractive and good quality public realm; to improve accessibility, movement and linkages within Acton Town Centre; to maximise the regenerative potential and coherence of Acton. Night-time Economy: encourage the development of evening economy anchors... that would increase footfall within the ton centre at night and patronge to eating and drinking establishments. Retail Environment: create a less oppressive, more appealing shopping environment, better pedestrian linkages between Churchfield Road and the High St through proposed redevelopment of the Oaks Shopping Centre Establish clear pedestrian north-south access between High St and Churchfield Rd " letters to Boris: mayor@london.gov.uk Please let him know what you think ASAP - time is of the essence - best get something to him at the latest in the next two weeks. Please tell everyone and anyone who might want to make their last-ditch objection. I'm also hoping to get the councillors who voted against it to reiterate their opposition to him with their very well-argued points.John.popham@ealing.gov.uk, Ian.potts@ealing.gov.uk, mark.reen@ealing.gov.uk, William.brooks@ealing.gov.uk, Colm.costello@ealing.gov.uk,Jon.ball@ealing.gov.uk, It would be educational to hear to also hear the reasons given by those who voted in favour - there are minutes of the meeting which should be broadcast.Chris.summers@ealing.gov.uk, Swaran.padda@ealing.gov.uk, Mohammad.aslam@ealing.gov.uk, Katherine.crawford@ealing.gov.uk, Surinder.varma@ealing.gov.uk, Mohammed.kausar@ealing.gov.uk, Mohinder.midha@ealing.gov.uk, plus the planner who recommended it: Steve Austin His report copiously listed all the objections only to dismiss them all in a few lines.BORIS CAN STOP IT.As you have heard elsewhere it is crystal clear this decision was a foregone conclusion. The objections were far too cogently argued to be completely ignored as they were, and the comments from the approving councillors utterly incoherent. The hearing was a charade. Apart from all the above, the Labour majority had decided before they went in. That's reason enough to have this decision called in.Thanks for getting this far...
David Buckingham ● 4712d