Forum Topic

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 ● 1512d8 Comments

In the Royal Town Planning Institute’s (RTPI) “The Planner” Planning News of 14th October 2021, it was reported that “Councils to get funding for brownfield land development”.  “Brownfield” = previously-developed land, which following a change in the law on 9th June 2010 does NOT include ordinary domestic gardens in built-up residential areas.While this is good news for the protection of Ealing borough’s leafy neighbourhoods and green open spaces, there is a problem when it seems that Ealing Council Planning Department do not always grasp what is a garden or otherwise!In the recent case at 1 Golden Manor W7 which is the subject of my original posting, I related that the LBE Case officer twice incorrectly told the Planning Committee assembled at the Town Hall on 21st July 2021 that the large garden at this Conservation Area property was “previously-developed land” (Brownfield).  This error was left uncorrected by the recently-appointed Chief Planning Officer who was attending the Committee Meeting.In the published Agenda Report (which was not available to the public attending on the night!) and again verbally, Councillors on the Planning Committee were misdirected by the senior Case Officer that the gardenland in question was a Brownfield site (like a derelict factory) rather than Greenfield land (like a park). The same mistake occurred in another case in W13 on a previous occasion when the Ealing Planning Team Leader told the Committee that a garden does not count as “Greenfield” if the garden concerned belongs to a house and that instead it is a “Brownfield” site! This is a strange proposition when most gardens are associated with the house to which they belong!  Again, the Planning Area Manager (before her promotion to Chief Planning Officer) remained silent as her senior staff member talked nonsense!In the statement from the RTPI three days ago, they even refer to “Brownfield” land as including “unsightly derelict buildings” and that 57.8 million pounds has been allocated to 53 Councils to develop “Brownfield” land.However, it is to be hoped that in all the excitement Ealing planners will in future remember what the difference is between a garden and a derelict factory?Victor Mishiku"The Covenant Movement"  17/102021vmfree@madasafish.com

Victor Mishiku ● 1424d

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 ● 1462d

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 ● 1510d

>>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 ● 1511d

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 ● 1511d

Yes, thank you Victor for keeping watch, and to all the objectors of the planning proposal. But the game is ongoing . . .

Tony Heath ● 1512d

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 ● 1512d

Thank you Victor

Libby Kemp ● 1512d