Forum Topics

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

Failure to Display Public Notice on Planning Application

Ever since Ealing Planning Department stopped sending out Notification Letters giving 21 days in which to respond to planning applications nearby, the system of putting up the yellow Public Notices on lampposts has been less than perfect.Disregarding instances where developers have likely pulled them down, the Planning Department itself has not always acted sensibly to ensure that affected neighbours know what it being proposed at close proximity.In a case in Rotherwick Hill (part of the Haymills Estate in Ealing W5), an unneighbourly play tower & platform was erected without planning permission.  Eventually, planning applications were made but the Council did not put up any Notices in the road where the adjoining back garden of an Ashbourne Close neighbour would be badly affected and where the neighbour had previously complained about the unauthorised structure overlooking their garden.Because no yellow Public Notice was put up in Ashbourne Close, the most affected neighbour was unaware of the latest application and therefore did not write in within the usual 21 days - only finding out that an Appeal to The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) had been lodged months later.   Because the neighbour had not filed an objection at first instance, the rules did not allow her to respond to the Appeal!The writer contacted PINS to explain the situation which was made worse as the Appellant's Planning Consultants were stressing that the neighbour had not objected at first instance and therefore there was no problem!PINS however were not satisfied that natural justice was being observed and ruled that the affected neighbour should be allowed to make her objections.The Appeal was dismissed by PINS yesterday  - please see at:https://www.dropbox.com/preview/AppealDecisionDismissedByPINS.13thMay2021.pdf?role=personalThis result vindicates the objection of the neighbour in Ashbourne Close - the road in which the Planning Department failed to put up a Public Notice!V.Mishiku  - "The Covenant Movement" vmfree@madasafish.com

Victor Mishiku ● 73d20 Comments ● 7d

JULIAN BELL HONESTY TEST UPDATE

Julian Bell Honesty Test.  Update. I asked Bell a simple question over a month ago.  It concerned the circumstances in which Mr Najsarek gained employment with Ealing Council?  It was: “Did you already know anything of what appeared in the press on June 30 2016 in respect of Mr Najsarek’s behaviour in Bolton when you appointed him?”  Bell must have known the answer.  All he needed to say was yes or no.   A dilemma.  If he said “yes”, he would reveal that he had been dishonest with the people of Ealing when he praised Najserak’s wonderful record of public service.  If you said “no”, he would confirm that Mr Najserak had successfully deceived his way into Ealing Council.A test of integrity for a public servant!   Not Bell.   He ignored the email.  He was guilty of a LIE BY OMISSION. As an avowed Christian, Bell, I am sure, would have been familiar with the Epistle of St James, the origin of this concept. It was his obligation as a public servant to make himself accountable.  He failed. It is was his obligation as a public servant to be honest.   It is my opinion and allegation (which I believe is supported by the simple evidence of this case) that he is a public liar and, as such, unfit for public office. I have told him to understand that every working day from now on I am asking the same question.  HOW OFTEN WILL JULIAN BELL LIE TO ANDREW FARMER?  FIVE DAYS SO FAR – AND COUNTING.

Andrew Farmer ● 373d105 Comments ● 7d