Forum Topic

Save our Woolworths Facade

West Ealing Neighbourhood Forum (WECNF) comprises a group of local volunteers dedicated to making West Ealing a better place to live and work. We are attempting to work closely with Ealing council to produce a community plan that will shortly endorsed through public referendum. As part of this plan we have identified a number of heritage landmarks that we are seeking to  protect  within out town centre. We are dismayed to discover recently that the housing association, A2Dominion, are proposing the demolition of our much loved Woolworth’s façade as part of the construction of a 14 storey block of flats overlooking the high street.  This beautiful art deco frontage, located at 96-102 Broadway, has been a landmark in our town centre since its construction in 1926 when it heralded the arrival of Woolworths Store number 239. We believe that this wonderful piece of West Ealing’s history, once restored and preserved, should be incorporated into any new building on this site. If you agree with us, please, please visit our website at www.wecnf.org where you can read about the work of the Forum and join with hundreds of others in signing our petition to preserve the structure.  Thanks a lotdave

David Randles ● 3195d18 Comments

What do you mean by the central area/secondary areas - Bond Street and the other running off Uxbridge road are much nicer spaces for independent shops than the High Street itself or the Mall which is better suited to more functional large shops and banks etc. Uxbridge road seems to look pretty scruffy wherever you look at it from Shepherd's bush to Southall and there are always a of tacky shops amongst the ok ones. Probably the same for many main road shopping streets.

M Powes ● 3170d

It's a really good idea in principal but possibly would fail due to one set of businesses being unwilling to pay a levy which would then go to subsidise their competition. Also with chains dominating the more central parts of the shopping district and independent increasing being confined to the secondary areas which are becoming more rundown it is likely that the larger businesses would see it in their interest to keep things as they are.

Andy Jones ● 3172d

Walking along new Broadway earlier today it struck me that the battle to preserve the historic heart of Ealing appears not to be going well. There are pockets of attractive older buildings but they are interspersed with newer ugly lucky construction and there is no sense of the place having a definable character. Whether this is the fault of the Luftwaffe or Council planners I don't really know.The other problem is that where the buildings are of better quality they are often blighted by garish or tacky shopfronts. Given that Ealing now has a Business Improvement District which can raise a levy perhaps the most effective way to actually improve the area would be to identify shopfronts that currently detract from the look of parts of the Broadway with potential and give the shopowners a rates rebate if they submit revised designs that make the place look better.If developers see thriving retail business in shops located in traditional style units they will hesitate before inflicting garish limited life monstrosities on us and may actually try to ape the look and feel of what is already there.

Helena Cavanagh ● 3175d

I don't get any impression that they care much for anywhere at the moment TBH.

Dave Hawley ● 3186d

Given the monstrosity of the new Holiday Inn across the road I don't think the planning officers care much for West Ealing.

Philip Coe ● 3186d

In the circumstances, it will also be interesting to learn whether A2D offer the building contract to Rydon as their preferred contractor.

David Randles ● 3187d

It appears we will have to wait for your evidence on this but it will still have to be set against the current stock of academic research into this subject that shows that foreign buyers don't tend to leave flats empty.Just in case anyone is still in doubt there is a link to an article below entitled  "'Almost no evidence' of London homes owned by foreign buyers being left empty"In it research from the LSE and the University of York confirms that this is the case. Against this we currently have your claim that Boris Johnson now feels this is a problem - is there not perhaps a suspicion that this is a man whose views are formed by what he believes will serve his political advantage rather than any careful weighing of the facts? Blaming foreigners for our problems has become a bit of a vote winner over the last year or so.People in South East Asia generally do not have the more generous pension provision that people of their generation in the UK do and therefore tend to save much more. They put a lot of that saving into property particularly at the moment when yields on other financial instruments are very low. They are forced into property because securities wouldn't provide them the income they need. You are quite dismissive of the idea of a property as an investment as if there is some contradiction with it also being a home. In fact the opposite is the case. These people buy properties as an investment but for it to provide the yield they need it also has to become somebody's home.Please do let us know when you publish your what you have learnt but until them I'm inclined to believe the Government reports, academic research and common sense understanding of human behaviour that suggest that foreigners are part of the solution to our housing problems not part of the problem.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/almost-no-evidence-london-homes-owned-foreign-buyers-left-empty/

Andy Jones ● 3190d

Andy, the point I am making is that yes, you are correct, incentives are being made to overseas investors  which exclude EU and UK residents/citizens and thus leading to unoccupied properties in this city.These are sold as investments. Not as homes.  Just like bitcoins.At best they are holiday homes. Occupied for a month or two.I've visited dozens over the last 5 years. It is well reported from the Guardian to the Telegraph. The BBC and Channel 4 have all raised this. Are we all completely wrong?The government Housing Select committee report fell way short of reality leaving many questions unanswered. I'm hardly surprised, it is extremely difficult to find out details.No doubt you are also aware that after several years of complete denial, Boris Johnson changed his view in his final months of office and that the current mayor raised this very issue during his election campaign.The second point is yes, incentives are made to non-UK and EU citizens who are also non UK residents. Why? Especially when as you say primary UK sales are flatlining.No such incentives were offered here. Not to ordinary people. It was also a practice for multiple Buy to Let purchasers to get a discount. That's a whole other issue which threatens the rental market as it has reached saturation point.Good news for renters at least.It is not restricted to Ealing - at present Ealing as far as I know, does not have any property currently being marketed overseas. But it is long established in Hounslow, Lambeth, Greenwich,Wandsworth Westminster, Southwark, Tower Hamlets and K&C and several others in London.I've been involved with research into this for over 7 years now and you are right, some circumstances in markets have changed. It has altered a bit in the last 12 months.But the buildings are up, the damage done, the profits made.Nonetheless, even with recent events, the market in London remains one of the most profitable over a shorter term than other cities and clearly the loopholes exist.Councils remain too quiet about this. It suits them. They get full council tax for unoccupied property but gain from not having to provide any services.Don't get this confused with social housing or 'affordable housing' where sub-letting and poverty is more of an issue. This is higher end property and new build property marketed as high end.It's far from convenient for me not to disclose evidence. It would be a lot easier. It is the hard gained labour of a small team and it is theirs, not mine, to fully disclose.  It will be published in due course, and it focuses on other locations.My concern is Ealing are going down the same road wooed with intentions by developers overriding what is really needed.What is apparent is there are a lot of empty quality dwellings, too many. In a densely populated city. Granting planning to developments which will primarily be marketed abroad while a domestic shortage is simply not right.

Mark Kehoe ● 3190d

People may have flipped flats when capital values were buoyant but that game ended several years ago. Now these new build units are not selling out at the time of initial marketing so the secondary market is very thin and you would probably have to sell at a loss. People who have been buying for the last few years have been buying for the income not the capital gain. To get income you need a tenant. When you have a tenant the home is occupied.I'm not sure what point Mark was trying to make in his anecdote. It sounds like in the instance he describes Malaysian purchaser were given some sort of tax incentive to buy overseas property probably in return for putting it into some sort of pensions vehicle. Therefore the scheme was just for locals. Do foreign buyers of property try to avoid tax as much as they can? Of course they do but domestic buyers will be doing the same so it isn't supportable to claim where the buyer is based makes much of a difference to how much tax is raised.That some empty properties exist is not in dispute. I'm sure you will be able to find some. Your original claim, which you still haven't given any evidence for, is that foreign buyers are more likely to leave a unit vacant. The notion that you have 'more than just hearsay evidence' but you can't disclose it seems a bit convenient. The actual evidence that has been published including submissions to the Commons Housing Select committee is unequivocal and shows that the country of origin of the property owner has no impact on the likelihood of the home being left vacant.

Andy Jones ● 3190d

I was asked a few years ago by a friend to go and have a look at a flat on his behalf.This was in Brentford by the river.He lived here as well but was a German and on a 3 year secondment to Singapore and Malaysia.The flat in question was discounted in Mtaylasia and he wanted to take advantage of the deal. Why not? The investment made a lot of sense.I did view the place and was not terribly impressed with what was described as 'Luxury'. But it's not my money and not my venture.However when my colleague decided to go ahead he found that he could not purchase at the discount because it was not open to UK or EU citizens. No explanation was satisfactory.The best he could ascertain is because tax and duties would be payable.So it does raise the question ( Unanswered by the way, by then Mayor Boris Johnson) as to whether any investment or revenue/excise reaches these shores. Most property developers have overseas sub companies or are based in the Channel Islands.As for the empty properties. I suggest you go and take a regular look at a few locally. It is not a myth. The places are far too quiet compared to places where they are fully occupied.  Parts of GWQ, Ferry Quays in Brentford and Several areas in Knightsbridge.  I'm party to far more than just hearsay evidence on this but not at liberty to disclose it all here.

Mark Kehoe ● 3191d

"What possible reason would reason would anyone have for leaving a flat vacant for a prolonged period and forgoing  the substantial revenue you get from rent?"Because the owner could flip it in six, nine months for an appreciably higher price, although this practice does seem to be on the wane. However, I see that there are flats which are being "resold" before the things are even built. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-48359484.htmlAs for the flats which are not vacant, how many people can afford to rent a 2 bedroom flat where the landlord must be paying out £3K a month on the mortgage?

Terry Freestone ● 3191d

I thought it was very sad when the old Marks and Spencer building in West Ealing was completely demolished as soon as they closed the branch. That was also a classic building designed for them, including a proper M&S clock. I would have loved it if the clock at least had been put on the Ealing Broadway M&S, even though that's not a classic M&S building of course, but I bet it was just destroyed. To lose the classic Woolworths façade too would be another tragedy, although it has been allowed to get into a bad state.

Dave Hawley ● 3191d

If you look at the actual evidence rather than an unscientific light test there is no difference in occupancy between foreign owned units and those owned by domestic buyers. This has been demonstrated time and time again most recently when analysis was done of occupancy in the Kensington area around Grenfell Tower. This showed it was a myth there was a significant amount of unoccupied property in the area. What possible reason would reason would anyone have for leaving a flat vacant for a prolonged period and forgoing  the substantial revenue you get from rent? Certainly not the buyers from places like Singapore and Hong Kong who acquire them to give an income in retirement. If anything their units are more likely to be tenanted.The idea that they pay less tax is also erroneous. They will be subject not just to stamp duty but the premium that BTL purchasers now have to pay so the effectively will pay more than someone buying a flat to live in. They may not be liable to CGT if they sell but most domestic buyers find ways to avoid this tax as well. This is not to mention the substantial benefit to our balance of payments of the huge sums of money that have come in to purchase property.Restricting foreign purchases also would be a dumb idea because a large proportion of new build property would not be developed if overseas money wasn't coming in. As it stands we aren't creating enough new homes and if we cut off this source of demand there would be even fewer. Domestic buyers are more scarce than they should be because of draconian restrictions on mortgage approvals so they wouldn't be able to fill the gap.

Andy Jones ● 3191d

14 storeys will overlook an entire low level residential neighbourhood that lies behind the Uxbridge road.As for overseas investors. The BBC did a light test on a local tower block. For a whole week . It was easy to see which parts were unoccupied and which had lights on timers. Very little of the tower is actually in full time occupation.It has barely changed since. Most of it is dark at night as are a few other luxury developments.Marketing these overseas where not even payment comes into the UK tax system ought to be completely banned or taxable at a much higher rate than for a UK purchaser, and bloc buy to lets also banned on new properties under 10 years old.Further into town and whole blocks have just a few full time occupants who are now facing the additional burden of maintenance not being paid for by absent occupants and overseas leaseholders.If all these places were occupied full time and affordable to ordinary mortals then we would barely have a housing problem.Local authorities should be imposing a moratorium on ALL buildings over 6 storeys until the results of all the pending enquiries and shortcomings of higher buildings in this area are fully addressed.

Mark Kehoe ● 3191d

At the risk of saying something very unpopular that part of the high street is very run down - is the façade really that important? Looking at the old photograph it is just that, a façade with a very ordinary brick body. I like many old buildings but modern buildings can also be attractive and often better than the ones they replace. Saving just a façade can result in a compromised design which is neither one thing or another especially for residential buildings. Unless the whole building is really special it is better IMO to invest the budget in a really good new design. Shouldn't local people put their energies into really scrutinizing the quality of any major new builds right down to the utilities and interiors? I get much more frustrated by cheap/bodged new builds of which there are may examples. There is a very nice art deco style residential block on Ealing High Street - Longfield House. The interior was also once very beautiful but now it is sadly very rundown. I thought this worth regenerating but where would the investment come from realistically?I can see there are the usual political planning issues/gripes here but in itself would a modern replacement necessarily be less attractive? In terms of future housing it is the overall build quality that is important.

M Powes ● 3191d

Whilst I have reservations about the desirability of this scheme to object to it on the grounds that it would provide investment opportunities for people from Singapore and China is not valid. If a flat is going to be bought for rental it doesn't matter where the landlord resides, the person who lives in it will reside locally. The idea that overseas landlords are more likely to keep a property vacant is not born out by the evidence.

Andy Jones ● 3191d

We're losing too many buildings that make Ealing the pleasant place to live that it used to be.  Just look at the monstrosities that are going up in Central Ealing towering over what was a human-scale townscape.And what do we gain?  Very few 'affordable rent' dwellings are planned as part of this development.  I calculated the figure will be 25 out of a total of 119.  There will also be 17 part ownership flats.  The remainder will be for private sale.  Yet more 'investment opportunities' for inhabitants of Singapore and China rather than actually solving any of our own housing problems.One day we will look back at this and weep and wonder how we allowed it to happen.

Thelma Leach ● 3191d

What chances do you place on this NOT happening given the 'VERY close' links between A2D and members of Ealing Council?

Paul Gibbs ● 3195d