Forum Topic

How can Ealing claim to be "most ecological in London" when it proposes building huge tower blocks?

I am intrigured as to how Ealing Council can claim to be the most ecological borough in London, or indeed to be ecological at all, if it is proposing to build huge tower blocls on the site of the present Perceval House council building?

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1908d54 Comments

Where's the legal aid going to come from?  It would be awful if there is  a dereliction of responsibilities in the race to tick boxes.

Philippa Bond ● 1866d

Perhaps, when any deaths from fire occur in these High Rise Towers in Ealing & Acton, survivor's families may be able to sue LBE and its Planning Department for negligence in granting Planning Permission in the first place?

Rosco White ● 1870d

Apart from being ecologically sound - what about being safe?  How do firefighters put out fires in these buildings.  I'm not convinced with all the deregulation and privatisation that this has been sorted out yet.

Philippa Bond ● 1871d

Sorry.... my response in agreement with everything you say is further down the list on the 13th March Raymond . Clicked onto the incorrect remark you made. Beryl B

Beryl Bashford ● 1873d

I agree absolutely with what you say . I also add that  apart from all these towering blocks of flats , the once pretty tree lined streets are suffering also. As each family house  in my area comes onto the market ,  it is partially demolished and converted into 3-5 flats . Even digging under the basements to add yet another floor. They are price  tagged at over £675,000 . Families with children want a house with a garden  near to their school .  Not a flat in the roof meaning they have to drag buggies and shopping bags up the stairs.  Our street is already overpopulated as so many houses had already  converted into two flats. Do these Property Developers give a backhander to get their plans passed I sometimes wonder.?

Beryl Bashford ● 1873d

    👍    💪

Rosco White ● 1881d

"The way to stop the most profound change to the built environment of Ealing since Edwardian times is to first remember that Ealing and the developers will have employed consultants and experts to show how they believe what is planned is legal. The only way to stop them is to develop arguments of similar sophistication to show that they are not — 'tower blocks bad' does not meet this requirement."
And on that note people may like to consider donating to the Stop The Towers GoFundMe appeal to achieve just that. Much preliminary work has already been done to formulate a carefully reasoned argument that it is hoped will carry legal weight and a leading property barrister has been informally consulted but more funds are required in order to pursue the matter further. Stop The Towers:  https://stopthetowers.info/ The STT GoFundMe page: https://www.gofundme.com/f/stop-the-towers (This is a new appeal BTW and has started relatively slowly due to a lack of awareness.  A previous appeal raised a considerable sum that is not reflected in the running total here.)

Tony Colliver ● 1881d

AIUI Ealing Council has ALREADY signed off enough housing (flats!) to fulfil their housing requirement into 2023!Ealing Planning is well known to cherry pick the housing and other salient Regulations that suit them, and ignore the Regs that don't.Is this Fair, Proper, Decent and Right?

Rosco White ● 1881d

Tricia. Flats in the new developments are marketed off plan as soon as the preliminaries are agreed with the Council, years before the planning application becomes public. Not much incentive for the council to turn down huge towers if 50 or 70 percent are sold before it comes to the planning committee.Ealing has a Development Plan which it passed in December 2013 and which was to last until 2026. That did not include building towers on the scale now being contemplated .but Shital Manro, chair of the committee, has thrown that out of the window.It means objections are ignored, even if those objections are based on the very policy the council agreed 8 years ago.Can you recall any recent decision from this council where it has actively sought public opinion before setting out plans it wants to follow?

Simon Hayes ● 1882d

Simon, could you be more specific about how you feel planning procedure has not been followed. While I agree that there seems to be an uncomfortably close relationship between the council and some developers this is not in itself a breach of planning law. Pre-application discussions are now the norm and the idea is that this can speed the process of building new homes. It does reduce transaparency and create the impression of our future being decided in smoke filled rooms rather than the broader community but that is the way the system is currently working.

Tricia Arbuthnot ● 1882d

You are 100% correct Mr Hayes.

Rosco White ● 1883d

There is a fundamental flaw in the ‘build tower blocks’ argument, namely that the correct planning procedures have not been followed.The way it works in Ealing is the Council and the developers get together, decide where they would like to build, spend a year or two finessing their plans them ‘present’ a bowdlerised version for ‘consultation’. This usually results in objections being ignored and the building getting the go-ahead.It’s the same process as other decisions made by this council but planning is the one where the blight will be most obvious.Ealing has already achieved its housing target.Ealing is not supposed to be in the business of making profits for developers. The proportion of ‘affordable’ housing is laughably small. That which is supplied isn’t what’s actually needed. They’ve even given the developers of Gurnell an opt out from building affordable housing there. Crazy.If there isn’t room in Ealing for appropriate development then the developers will have to look elsewhere. You can’t just keep building ever taller towers.

Simon Hayes ● 1883d

It isn't as if some great truth has been realised in making the statement that tower blocks are bad. Almost everyone is likely to agree that this is the case in the context of Ealing borough. It is however important to recognise the council's motivation for adopting this policy which is likely to prove extremely unpopular and cost them dearly in future elections. Both Labour and Conservative parties competed with each other to make the claim that they would build the most new housing. Funding has been made to help these targets be achieved. In London we have both a serious issue with homelessness and the related problem of lack of affordability of new homes. Therefore developers are being asked to include typically 50% of 'affordable' properties in their schemes. Building an affordable unit, even a bogus one which is only available at a relatively small discount to the market, is not profitable and genuinely affordable homes will be built at a loss. This means that to be profitable developers have to maximise their returns by developing any sites more intensively. They are all arguing that if the council and the Mayor want a high level of affordability they have to accept a very tall buildings. The alternative of low density housing is not on the table. No developer could provide this profitably in London and the amount of new homes that would be delivered would be well below the targets set at a local and national level and the issue of homelessness would not be dealt with. In other cities in the world dealing with rising property prices and housing shortages the solution has been the expansion of satellite towns with good transport connections into the captial but we have the Green Belt which is likely to remain sacrosanct for the forseeable future. Because of all the above Ealing Council is committed to a tower block building programme. Given the policy imperative it is highly likely that a Conservative council would have gone down the same path had they been in power. Remember London's uniqueness as a city with relatively few tall buildings ended during Boris Johnson's term as Mayor and he more than anyone opened up the door for what is happening now. If you genuinely thing this is a bad thing then you are wasting your time by telling us verbosely that tower blocks are bad or that tower blocks are environmentally unfriendly. Tower blocks are already been approved and built in Ealing and across other parts of London so, from a planning point of view, the principle that they can be built is accepted. The way to stop the most profound change to the built environment of Ealing since Edwardian times is to first remember that Ealing and the developers will have employed consultants and experts to show how they believe what is planned is legal. The only way to stop them is to develop arguments of similar sophistication to show that they are not — 'tower blocks bad' does not meet this requirement.

Gordon Southwell ● 1883d

Rosco, Thank You for that good common-sense observation that grounds the whole subject

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1884d

I think most ordinary folk, like me, simply ask:-"If Tower Blocks from the 60s & 70s didn't 'work', and have to invariably be demolished, because of, amongst numerous reasons, out of control anti-social behaviour, why would these New Tower Blocks be any different?" Tower Blocks are not a solution, they are a Problem.

Rosco White ● 1884d

Tricia and Gordon, as you have no doubt re-read what I have written and interpreted it to mean something other than what it is, once again: tower blocks are bad, housing does not have to be tower blocks. Simples really when you read the words to mean what they say rather than what you would like them to mean. What is more, offices and shops and other facilities by nature  have a greater carbon footprint in high-rise tower blocks so I am going to add some "ornamentation" for Tricia and point out that in speaking against TOWER BLOCKS I am also speaking out against office blocks and shopping complexes located in TOWER BLOCKS.P.s. on reflection, Tricia, the phrase "self-projection" is not to be found in any lexicon of psychology or dictionary that I have encountered, perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you mean by this? (There is projection and transference in psychoanalysis, and projection in mathematics when mapping things, but "self-projection" is a new one for me. I am always pleased to learn something new, so pray elucidate, please

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1884d

Tricia, you say "The difference between Heathrow and tall towers in Ealing is that there is a consensus that more housing needs to be built but there wasn't that the airport needed to be expanded." However,you seem to be missing the connection that housing DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TALL TOWERS. You are equating "housing" with "tall towers" this does not have to be the case. Housing can be low rise, it can be houses, it can be flats, it can even be houseboats, both you are and Gordon seem to be locked into the idea that housing = tall towers, I see other, better, more sustainable options that provide for better environments and communities. I am arguing against tall towers, not housing. Please read everything that I have said again and you will see what I am saying. As you introduced "self-PROJECTING", i.e. projection, might I suggest that you are projecting the idea of tall towers onto housing or is it housing onto tall towers? (neither of which is a one-on-one birectional mapping)

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1885d

Oops, I meant "An apology to Gordon SOUTHWELL", NOT "Gordon Southern", I used to know a "Gordon Southern" hence the errorSo, Mr SOUTHWELL, I am sorry that I have been so harsh on your comments, it was unfair in that I am in a sort of agreement with you if we agree on the idea that:1) We need more housing2) We need it to be affordable (really affordable, not just a "bit off the going market price, and3) We need more proper social housing,Where the divergence in thought then occurs is that I would say it is important HOW that housing is implemented and that the approach that has the least environmental impact "low impact" over the long term time is what I would hope would be implemented.As an afterthought, Tricia, not EVERYONE thinks that there should not be a third runway, numerous businesses and the politicians that they fund think that there should be. I obviously am against a third runway. If EVERYONE had thought that there should not be a third runway then we would not have needed the campaign, protests and legal actions

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1886d

Mr Southern!I am sorry that I have been so harsh on your comments, it was unfair in that I am in a sort of agreement with you if we agree on the idea that:1) We need more housing2) We need it to be affordable (really affordable, not just a "bit off the going market price, and3) We need more proper social housing,Where the divergence in thought then occurs is that I would say it is important HOW that housing is implemented and that the approach that has the least environmental impact "low impact" over the long term time is what I would hope would be implemented.As an afterthought, Tricia, not EVERYONE thinks that there should not be a third runway, numerous businesses and the politicians that they fund think that there should be. I obviously am against a third runway. If EVERYONE had thought that there should not be a third runway then we would not have needed the campaign, protests and legal actions

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1886d

Mark, there is an element of self-projection when you accuse Gordon of cobbled together half thoughts. He made his point very clearly. I don't necessarily think you are completely wrong but you are basically repeating the same idea over and over again more ornately than before. The difference between Heathrow and tall towers in Ealing is that there is a consensus that more housing needs to be built but there wasn't that the airport needed to be expanded.

Tricia Arbuthnot ● 1886d

Surely, you are having a laugh, Mr. Putland?You are not the architect of one of these monstrosities are you?Only the last time I heard such nonsense it came out of the month of a member of that profession in connection with the proposed cluster of towers planned for the tiny site at the end of Hastings Road.

Tony Colliver ● 1886d

Gordon, let us take this idea of legislated policy and then doing something after the policy has been legislated that goes against it in the framework of what just happened with the blocking of Heathrow's third runway by a court which ruled that the progessing of the third runway had gone AGAINST previously legislated Central Government environmental policy. What happens if the STOPTHETOWERS movement takes Ealing Council to court on the basis that the approval and progession of these highrise tower blocks goes against the previously legislated policy of the Council to respond to the climate emergency and reduce its carbon footprint? Especially in light of the marked differences in environmental impact and carbon footprint between tall tower blocks and low rise?

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1886d

Gordon, you say: "This has been explained to you before but you can't base an argument against the plans on the simple premise that they are bad for the environment. Housing targets will override environmental targets for local authorities.", however, your first sentence makes no sense in the English language, I must point out that in basic English: "A sentence is a complete thought expressed in words". You seem to have cobbled together some half-thoughts, not expressed them cogently, and MISSED the point of the thread! The subsequently thrown together paragraph justaposes some unrelated ideas. Read my first statement! This thread is about the contradiction between the Council's political policy of carbon footprint reduction in response to the climate emergency and the subsequent approval and propagation of high carbon footprint, unecological and unsustainable TOWER BLOCKS! Please read it again! You are missing the point completely

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1886d

This has been explained to you before but you can't base an argument against the plans on the simple premise that they are bad for the environment. Housing targets will override environmental targets for local authorities. Most things have an environmental impact. Keeping people alive longer isn't good for the carbon reduction targets but that isn't a reason to abolish the NHS. It will be a waste of your time trying to persuade the planning committee that there are environmental reasons to not build all these towers based on generalised arguments. You make some good points about the ways in which building vertically can lead to extra energy use but building horizontally has other, perhaps worse impacts. Plans of this nature won't be stopped by non-specific statements that 'big buildings are bad'. Ealing has just approved a much larger tower in North Acton so it is the detail of the development that will provide ammunition with reference to particular legislation. Have a look on the Acton forum for Libby Kemp's brilliantly argued objections to the Portal Way towers based on fire safety requirements. Buildings this large will have to produce an independently written environmental impact statement as part of their planning application submission. This will probably provide a good starting point for finding valid grounds for objections.

Gordon Southwell ● 1886d

James, a corollary to this (if you think in terms of energy and the associated carbon)in a framework that you would understand would be Initial Cost versus Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1886d

James, actually, yes I have, The area of lowrise versus highrise and the long term carbon footprint is very interesting. High rise building infrastructure needs to be  refurbished regularly and takes a lot of energy to run. As the water supply is only good to deliver up to about two stories it has to be pumped up to the top of the building into holding tanks and then delivered downward requiring a lot of power over the life time of the building. Delivering power up through 55 stories requires high capacity and very high standard power distribution equipment. Lifts are required over three stories which use electricity, rather a lot of it over a building's lifetime compared with walking up and down stairs. The more technologically advanced high rises use a lot of power to climate control the interior as the windows cannot be opened making use of a lot of petroleum-sourced refrigerants. After a relatively short life span compared to a low-rise building it is not untypical to require the whole building to be refurbished ranging from new lifts (metal bearings and running rails wear out - think how long the moving bits on your car last, or don't), replacement sealed glazing units (a non-trivial operation at the 55th floor), usually it is cheaper to demolish the existing high-rise and build a new one then to undergo the expensive refurbishment. That is jsut the tip of the iceberg. There is plenty of literature about this online and otherwise. Before inventing a fashionable argument that sounds good in your own ears as you have done you might want to verify some, if not all of your facts

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1886d

It’s Canary Wharf syndrome. Build one tower, then another until there’s nothing but towers. Then everyone complains they can see nothing but towers. It’s horrible there.

Simon Hayes ● 1886d

A case of mine is bigger than yours.

Libby Kemp ● 1886d

ZERO community space around a 25 storey block (as has been proposed for Hastings Road) is not promoting "community, health and wellbeing". Nonsense to suggest otherwise.

N V Brooks ● 1886d

New homes but not the answer to the housing problem as these are investment properties, as has been well discussed elsewhere. There are any number of issues with the ecological impact of rapacious development: the use of concrete, the creation of massive clouds of noxious dust, enormous numbers of lorry journeys to ferry materials in and out, the failure of Sadiq Khan to enforce the rules on machinery emissions (everyone is exempt apparently, even though plant emissions contribute masses of pollution to London’s air), problems with access to recycling facilities within developments. A myriad of reasons.Perhaps most concerning is the failure to build communities. The experience of the past taught us that high rise living doesn’t engender good community spirit and social cohesion. People feel isolated. Facilities in these new developments are scarce (just look at South Acton, which is relatively low rise, where the Working Men’s club is closing and youth centres don’t exist). There is limited outdoor space and little planting. Building family homes, which are what’s needed, with gardens (proven ecological benefits) is what Bell and co should be striving for.Just ask yourself who is really benefiting from all this over-development?

Simon Hayes ● 1886d

There is an equally great need for affordable housing in the countryside which is haemorrhaging young workers and families away from local industries and services.
It is nonsense to suggest otherwise.

N V Brooks ● 1886d

Have you looked at the ecological footprint of new builds? I suspect not. There are some highly innovative aspects to new apartment buildings that promote sustainability, community, health and wellbeing. Coupled with the need for more housing, I fail to understand your high level view that high rise = not ecologically friendly. Aesthetically displeasing perhaps, but not necessarily unecological.

James Putland ● 1886d

I take you are are happy to move away from London then to the countryside where there is less need for more housing? Have you volunteered to do so yet?..

James Putland ● 1886d

Ten months ago Ealing Council unanimously passed a motion to  declare a Climate Emergency and set out to reduce its carbon footprint, how can it justify tower blocks in light of this?Ealing Today, April 4th 2019:Ealing Council Declares Climate Emergency Follows stark warnings that the planet has 12 years to act Ealing Council has agreed that there is a Climate Emergency triggering commitment to introduce plans to reduce its carbon footprint.The motion was put forward by Liberal Democrat Councillor, Jon Ball, and was debated at full council. Ball pointed to Manchester and Bristol city councils, who have both pledged zero-carbon targets by 2030 and 2038, and said Ealing should be taking similar steps.He said: "Ealing Council needs to do more. Some councils require homes to be built with much better environmental standards than we do I want to know how. We need to find out what communities are achieving in other countries – and what we can learn from them. We need to lead the way: inspire others to follow us and shame those doing nothing.He said: “This council cannot prevent catastrophic climate change, but we can acknowledge and accept we are facing a genuine climate emergency.”The Labour leadership defended its record, citing the second highest recycling rates in London, 40 new electric car charging points being installed over the spring, higher priced parking permits for polluting cars and a reduction in speed limits to encourage walking and cycling.Council leader Julian Bell also pointed to the council recently replacing eight diesel vehicles with electric ones, and said there were also plans to require new builds to produce ten per cent of their energy use from renewables. Conservative councillor Alexander Stafford wasn’t convinced, however. He said: “What are we doing? The council has a large pension fund – are we looking at divesting (of fossil fuel investments). What about energy consumption at council? Are we looking at green tariffs? I think not.“There’s so much more we could be doing straight away. We are looking at too small scale.”Mr Stafford said five per cent of all carbon dioxide emissions were released from the production of concrete, and pointed out the large housing projects in the borough were only encouraging that production.He said: “Don’t think passing a motion makes a difference, it’s the actions that make a difference.”Written with additional content from local democracy reporter Ged Cann 4 April 2019

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1893d

Bell will leave a wonderful legacy.
Tower blocks of 'family unfriendly' shoeboxes Closed libraries Tracts of community space given away
His Council has even lost the support of Rupa Huq.
He, and those who voted for him and his party must be SO proud.

N V Brooks ● 1893d

"What you sow, so shall ye reap", or something like that.BellEnd and The Southall Posse's work is almost done now. By the end of their current term in office, Acton & Ealing will have been thoroughly trashed beyond recognition, but they will swan off with their squirrelled away earnings and enjoy a lubbly jubbly retirement.  Ta V much!Thank you Local Labour Voters of Ealing, Acton, and Southall - "Outstanding"!

Rosco White ● 1893d

Various residents groups are planning a joint protest outside the next council meeting at 18:00 on Tuesday, 25/2/2020.The more people that can attend the greater the impact will be.This page detailing the event is from the Stop The Towers group but there are many other groups across Ealing which are also organising their members to attend:  https://stopthetowers.info/protest-ealing-town-hall(Paste the above link into your browser pending a response to my request to neighbournet tech support on how to make the link clickable.)Everybody who does not like what the council is doing with all of these tower blocks is urged to attend. No need to be affiliated to any particular group - just turn up and make your views clear to those in charge.

Tony Colliver ● 1894d

I believe it *IS* the tallest, yes.

Tony Colliver ● 1894d

55 storey must be one of the tallest residential tower blocks in the whole of London not just Ealing?

Philip Coe ● 1894d

God Help Us! We have lost our collective marbles in Ealing. That we are now about to build a 55-storey tower block not only trashes our credentials as an ecological borough, it trashes out claims to be the "most ecological" in London.It is pure ecocide

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1894d

My apologies Ealing Today, you DID Twitter it out after all, I got muddled up with the different dates on the different Twitter Tweets from Ealing Today though the Tweet about the Topic about Charlotte's Place has definitely not appeared

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1904d

Note how the title of this thread has NOT been texted out as a Topic on Ealing Today while a more benign and Council-friendly one entitled "Perceval House Public Exhibition" has been, come on Ealing Today, stand up for Ealing Residents, ecology, sustainability and the future, NOT keeping the developers happy!

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1904d

Gordon,My discussion is about ecology and sustainability and Ealing's claims to be being ecological and sustainable while indulging in un-ecological and unsustainable high rise developments and NOT about the efficiency with which developers are parted from their monies. I positioned my answer to your answer in the framework of the thread title: "How can Ealing claim to be "most ecological in London" when it proposes building huge tower blocks?" not in the framework of your re-framed thinking which should be the basis of a different thread, perhaps entitled: "Is the Council getting the money that it should be when allowing developers permissions to build new developments " which is a micro-economic argument, not an ecological argument, I clearly position supply-and-demand as being unecological as a mechanism to achieve sustainability, (viz oceans full of plastic). The two are avery different and when you say "There isn't really a sound ecological argument against building new homes at a time of a housing shortage" that is orthogonal to this thread and is a new idea that perhaps in itself should have be the head of a new thread discussing that very complex are.a What is more, my thread is about TOWER BLOCKS not NEW HOMES (I think it is you who has missed the point of this thread), please read what I said again, and if you really do mean tower blocks then I would be most interested in hearing your thoughts about why you feel that tower blocks are ecological, as this goes against conventional wisdom and thinking, perhaps you can justify how unsustainable tower blocks fit in with Ealing Council's claims of it being the greenest borough in London?

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1905d

Think you have missed my point somewhat. There isn't really a sound ecological argument against building new homes at a time of a housing shortage. I also don't necessarily accept these flats won't be lived in.  There is a problem at the moment for people to obtain the size of mortgage necessary to pay for them and buy to let investors, both domestic and overseas, are being discouraged by a range government measures but there is huge demand in the rental market for this sort of unit. Depending on market conditions these developments could be hugely lucrative. However, it is shockingly rare how often the taxpayer benefits from asset disposals as profits are absorbed by contractors and middlemen. Councils generally prove to be incredibly naive when it comes to dealing with private sector developers and Vistry will inevitably try to put as much of the profits through wholly owed entities rather than the joint venture with Ealing.

Gordon Southwell ● 1906d

Before Mr N V Brooks questions the relevance of dogs and vomit to ecology and tower block flats (or some snowflake fool politically-correct barternder reports me to the police for being "unfair" to dogs), Wikkipedia has an excellent expansion of this aphorism: ""As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" is an aphorism which appears in the Book of Proverbs in the Bible — Proverbs 26:11 (Hebrew: כְּ֭כֶלֶב שָׁ֣ב עַל־קֵאֹ֑ו כְּ֝סִ֗יל שֹׁונֶ֥ה בְאִוַּלְתֹּֽו‎ Kəḵeleḇ šāḇ ‘al-qê’ōw; kəsîl, šōwneh ḇə’iwwaltōw.), also partially quoted in the New Testament, 2 Peter 2:22. It means that fools are stubbornly inflexible and this is illustrated with the repulsive simile of the dog that eats its vomit again, even though this may be poisonous. Dogs were considered unclean in Biblical times as they were commonly scavengers of the dead and they appear in the Bible as repugnant creatures, symbolising evil.[1][2][3] The reference to vomit indicates excessive indulgence and so also symbolises revulsion.[4]The incorrigible nature of fools is further emphasised in Proverbs 27:22, "Though you grind a fool in a mortar, grinding them like grain with a pestle, you will not remove their folly from them."[5]In Proverbs, the "fool" represents a person lacking moral behavior or discipline, and the "wise" represents someone who behaves carefully and righteously. The modern association of these words with intellectual capacity is not in the original context."

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1907d

Gordon,Excellently argued. It is  possible to rationalize just about anything, and one of the first things that undergraduate Computer Science students are taught in Logic is how to prove one plus one equals three using convetional logic operations, a salutory lesson in the difference between reductionist deductive logic verus reality.The Council can IETHER be "ecological" or it can serve popular supply-and-demand requirements. It cannot do both. A box is blue, a box is read, the blue box is not red and the read box isn't blue. A sustainable ecology is in direct conflict with the idea of supply-and-demand. Supply-and-demand is what gives us oceans filled with plastics.

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1907d

Simon,You make your point well. The tower blocks of today are the slums of tomorrow (as we continue demolishing the great bright hope twoer blocks of the sixties and the seventies that are the slums of today continue to be demolished to remove these contemporary slums, cf. South Acton Estate.Knowing that Cllr Julian Bell is a God-fearing man,I quoite Proverbs: "As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly" is an aphorism which appears in the Book of Proverbs in the Bible — Proverbs 26:11 We are going back to our folly in building these blocks in the light of previous experience and Cllr Julian Bell WILL still be alive to witness them become slums

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1907d

The Ministry of Housing issued a National Design Guide (Planning practice guidance for beautiful, enduring and successful places) to all local authorities towards the end of last year.  Not sure whether Ealing Council have either received or read it.You can download a copy here if you are interested:-https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/843468/National_Design_Guide.pdf

Philip Coe ● 1907d

Ealing Council housing policy isn’t solving the shortage because these ‘homes’ are investment properties for speculators. The borough, and neighbouring ones, are awash with these flats, many of which remain unsold.The stock response from LBE is it is building genuinely affordable housing, yet many of these properties are beyond the reach of many people. Household incomes, even for shared ownerships, have to be pretty substantial just to get on the ladder. Factor in service charges and the cost can become prohibitive.There’s a real shortage of family homes, and they just aren’t being built. These towers aren’t the answer.Of equal concern should be the utter lack of supporting infrastructure in these developments. There’s no building of communities, and the lessons of the past show just what a mistake that is.

Simon Hayes ● 1907d

It's all about money and a bit of ego thrown in.The housing crisis is a result of overpopulation and wilful overdensification.It's that that creates unnaffordability as well as the imbalance of incomes. Too many paid too much for their true worth and too many paid too little for their true worth.Supply and demand and thus opportunism and myopic authorities more bothered by career opportunities at the top end and votes at the electable end.Nothing has been learned from the consequences of the past. It's either ignorance and closed ears or something else.Most of the housing being built is to fit quotas and targets created by the rather inept policies of political advisors and their masters and cosy behind closed doors deals with developers and based on profit per m2.  Nothing to do with quality of life or long term living. It's all to suit a society that suits business.

Raymond Havelock ● 1907d

The Council would no doubt argue that if you have a housing shortage, an aggressive building target and limited land the only way you can go is up. The environment doesn't end at the borough borders so it isn't ecological to not build homes because they will just be built elsewhere. That the Council should be providing more housing must be taken as a given. The problem in Ealing is the extremes to which this is being taken. They seem to have unilaterally decided that 25 storeys is the right height for the area be it West Ealing, central Ealing or Acton. Given the largely Victorian and Edwardian housing stock in the area this seems to be an extraordinary deviation from what other boroughs with similar streetscapes are doing. I don't know if there is a borough plan in which this has already been consulted on and agreed by the Council but if not, it seems like a very small number of people are about to inflict major and irrevocable changes on Ealing. Why they are doing this is unclear, it could be personal enrichment, it could be that the Council's financial position is so dire they have no choice, it could be that they love tall buildings due to a personal bodily inadequacy. Whatever their motivations they seem determined to do it with the minimum possible scrutiny and involvement of local communities that are going to have to live with the consequences.

Gordon Southwell ● 1907d

Rosco, party-political sniping aside, if Ealing Council wants to create the most ecological borough in London then it must accept that sustainability is the first step towards being ecological, and that endless growth is the antithesis of sustainability and hence ecology. The first thing to note is that ANY building of over three stories requires lifts, pumps, and the like as well as the impact in terms of the local ecosystem in terms of factors like rain water run-off mitigation, and the list goes on. A step towards low-impact living is limiting building size to no more than three stories (as some townships around the world are doing) as this is sustainable without the cyclic renewal of internal infrastructure (for example, lifts need to be replaced every twenty years), which rules out tower blocks or high-rise blocks of any sort. With this must come the acceptance that population growth must stop in any attempt at achieving a sustainable Ealing.We simply cannot allow the population of Ealing to grow if we are ever to be sustainable.A third step after limiting building height and population density is to ensure that new buildings are ecological (naturally ventilated), eectrically self-generating, built from renewable materials (NO fossil-fuel originated building material), and then a fourth aspect would be upagrade all existing building to meet these standards

Mark Julian Raymond ● 1908d

It's painfully clear and very obvious, Bellend and his Southall Posse are hell bent on making Ealing/Acton the "New Croydon".  😨And we all know how wonderful a place Croydon is.  😂

Rosco White ● 1908d

Because what the Council says and what it does are two very different things.One example: punitive parking permit charges on CPZ residents to ‘encourage’ people out of their cars, yet offering parking in those very CPZs to commuters for as little as £3 a day, thus ‘encouraging’ other people to drive into the borough.But then what do you expect when the Council is led by a man who happily occupies a housing association house when he owns a five bedroom property round the corner.

Simon Hayes ● 1908d