Forum Topic

It is depressing how many people see things in such binary terms that they lose sight of the broader issue. In a set determination to give Ealing Council credit for absolutely nothing, the risk is that they will miss the broader negatives about the borough's policies. No objective person would say that the council's performance on new housing starts hasn't been quite impressive. If you put this in the context of the relatively high proportion of social rent properties developed it seems likely to me that the borough has provided one of the highest, if not the highest amount of this kind of much needed housing. League tables must be available somewhere and I'll stand corrected if this proves not to be the case. While acknowledging this success, people need to be aware of the price that has been paid and may be paid in the future. The council has come to accommodations with developers which placed the interests of future residents ahead of existing residents, they have accelerated the population density of the borough and approved a whole raft of tall towers which will transfer the skyline and the nature of the area not necessarily for the better. The looming danger is that they have got on a bicycle that they have to keep pedalling fast or they will fall over — the pace of development needs to be maintained even though every year fewer suitable sites will be available and those that can be acquired will be more expensive. The accounts of Broadway Living are opaque but we know that lots of leverage sits in there and we know that interest rates are rising. The pressure on the council to build may already be apparent in the Local Plan changes in which large scale encroachment on Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land is envisaged.  What are the chances that the 'Ealing Council can do no right' brigade have not even bothered to respond to the consultation on the Local Plan?


Gordon Southwell ● 459d

If you are going to characterise your neighbours as 'Lobotomised Lemmings' it might help to have a coherent argument and a basic grasp of the facts. Reducing the housing list is just a recognition of how bad the shortage of social housing is and is sensible as it is recognising that people in the lower categories have zero chance of being housed. If you look at social housing building across London, Ealing performs very well in comparison with other boroughs. The article linked to below shows it as ranked third in London in the proportion of new builds with nearly half being social housing or provided by Housing Associations. Some councils, including Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat built zero social housing during the year and some (none Labour) have built nothing for the last two years. Therefore, the residents of Ealing, seem to be voting entirely rationally if social housing is the main concern. https://www.propertyreporter.co.uk/property/which-are-the-best-and-worst-performing-councils-for-social-housing-delivery-in-london.html Anyone claiming this is a straightforward, uncomplex issue is either being deliberately misleading or doesn't understand the subject. The very unwelcome tall towers sprouting up across the borough are a result of the pressure on the council to deliver more housing stock. Ealing is actually doing well about hitting social housing targets and ill-thought out criticisms of cosmetic changes supported by nodding dogs only happy when something bad is said about the council, can't mask that.  Such arguments are misplaced when there are far more serious issues to be concerned about such as the Local Plan which is removing a huge amount of protection for the borough's green space, the hidden leverage in Broadway Living and the over close relationship the council has with developers and A2Dominion.

Gordon Southwell ● 460d