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" firstname.lastname@example.org
Victor Mishiku ● 56d7 Comments
Please see a follow-up topic just posted in the Acton Forum at www.ActonW3.com entitled: "Backgarden development refused in Lucy Crescent but ...."Thank you.
Victor Mishiku ● 6d
Funny isn't it? A backyard development can be kicked into touch but a 26 storey monstrosity in Ealing Broadway (which, last time I looked was nowhere near Manhattan) is welcomed with open arms. Unbelievable.
N V Brooks ● 54d
>>Rosco wrote>> what's a game when it's ridiculously stacked against you - a con, a swindle, a fraud???>>TH replies>> In reference to Ealing Planning Dept, perhaps the word 'game' is more appropriately applied in its verb form. >>> 'GAME' verb: manipulate (a situation), typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous. <<<
Tony Heath ● 55d
Victor Mishiku is a very Unsung Hero, the good people of Ealing, Acton, and further afield owe him a great deal."But the game is ongoing . " ........... but what's a game when it's ridiculously stacked against you - a con, a swindle, a fraud???
Rosco White ● 55d
Yes, thank you Victor for keeping watch, and to all the objectors of the planning proposal. But the game is ongoing . . .
Tony Heath ● 55d
I wish Victor that the Gunnersbury Park Bowls Club people had come to to for help.The planning and manipulation of procedures was a joke.Furthermore I understand there was a breach of protocol with the chair being a Trustee of the Park and an associate of the CIC director and has passed comments about removing the bowls club in the past, but saw it not to declare that at the meeting, yet some voting councillors were privy to this facts and said nothing.Hopefully someone more informed than myself will explain a bit more.But we need 50 Victors in both these rotten boroughs
Raymond Havelock ● 55d