Backgarden development refused tonight at Committee
I attended the Planning Committee tonight at Ealing Town Hall. I have been doing so for the last 35 years now.I was interested in the case at 1 Golden Manor W7 which is both in a Conservation Area and faces an adjoining Conservation Area and a small Public Open Space (the "Rose Garden"). In 2017 & 2018, I assisted neighbours fight off a previous worse proposal (which was being recommended for granting by the Planning Department) as on this occasion tonight.Upon arrival, I asked to see the Agenda for the 10 items under discussion. The Committee Clerk gave me her only copy (and there were 9 members of the public there including former MP, Stephen Pound). The 1 Golden Manor application was listed as Item 10 on the Agenda but the Agenda I was given only went up to Item 3 (last page 185).On reading the index, I realised that there are supposed to be 264 pages and the ones I wanted to read were pages 219 - 264 but they were all missing! I was able to read the "Briefing Notes" which were placed on the public seats right at the end of the Victoria Hall (away from the loudspeaker) and straight away I noticed a fatal error in them where the Planning Department had come to the bizarre conclusion that the garden at 1 Golden Manor was "previously-developed" land - in fact it is "Greenfield" as residential gardens in built-up areas are now designated as "Greenfield" since 9th June 2010 when the law was changed to protect green open spaces. This is not the first time a senior planner has made this mistake (uncorrected by her Area Manager, Ms Alex Jackson - as occurred in another case in W13 as Cllr. Mahmood may recall).After the Objectors' representative addressed the Committee very fully and after they then heard from the developer party, the Members of the Planning Committee discussed the application which Ward Councillor Ray Wall (Chair of the Planning Committee) had called in.I was very impressed by the comments of many of the Committee Members who were not afraid to question the recommendation of the Case Officer who was wholly in favour of the development.A number of the Members expressed concern about the inadequate plot size of the proposed development, the loss of garden land especially when "climate change" is much to the fore these days, actual harm to the Conservation Area and the fact that the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character of the Conservation Area and its original carefully laid-out housing and spacious gardens.The acting Chair, Cllr. Tariq Mahmood, called for a vote and the result was 8 - 3 to REFUSE the planning application.Well done to the residents who stood up to the garden-grabbers!Victor Mishiku Wednesday 21/7/2021"The Covenant Movement" vmfree@madasafish.com
Victor Mishiku ● 5d6 Comments ● 3d