Forum Topic

Tring Avenue now under attack from the architects who failed with 6 Marlborough Road

Congratulations to the residents and campaigners who convinced Ealing Council's planning team that the proposed 6 Marlborough Road development was unacceptable.A moral victory indeed and one which will hopefully stand up to the scrutiny of the Planning Inspectorate. But sadly, other parts of this borough face similar challenges from developers who care not one iota for the architectural integrity or the cohesion of our neighbourhoods.Across the North Circular from Marlborough Road lies the Rothschild Orchard Estate, built in the early 20th century and similarly under attack from unwanted development proposals and, by coincidence, the same architects as Marlborough Road, Red and White, led by Luke Pulham.In Tring Avenue a perfectly serviceable family home now faces being bulldozed to make way for a block of nine flats.  The Rothschild Orchard Neighbourhood Forum – an association recognised and approved by Ealing Council – represents residents in the Tring Avenue area and virtually all of our members are opposed to this scheme.Like Marlborough Road there are restrictive covenants in place to guard against over development.  These state that only one private dwelling house can be built on a plot, and no house should be unsuitable to the character of the neighbourhood.  Local residents nearby in Carbery and Kingsbridge Avenues have the benefit of these covenants and have been informed of this fact in case anyone wishes to exercise their rights in case of any breach.

Jo Bond ● 300d14 Comments

Seems that two companies are registered at 76 Tring. One young individual is a director of both while the other is a director of one.  It looks like a speculative play to have bought the property with the intention of obtaining planning permission and make a substantial investment return.  Just thinking out loud here.

Charles Campbell ● 283d

In Ms Walker's posting of the 11th July, she kindly suggested that neighbours apply for a Unilateral Notice to register a covenant issue as against the burdened land.In fact, if the covenant is already registered on the HM Land Registry Register for the offending plot, then that is sufficient to bind the land.Where a Unilateral Notice might be used is to record the fact of a pending court case to enforce a covenant. This warns any prospective Purchaser that there is an ongoing dispute.I imagine that the land in question is part of the Rothschild Estate which adjoins Edward Wood's "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing".  Both Victorian landowners contributed to the building of Ealing Town Hall.It may be that the Rothschild covenants in Tring Avenue were imposed so that the legal benefit of the restrictions is expressly annexed to neighbouring plots of land on that estate.In the Marlborough Road case, there is actually a Scheme of Development for "The Rectory Estate, Ealing, Middlesex" and this was very thoughtfully created in 1853 which results in all 161 Lots on the estate mutually having the burden and benefit of the estate restrictions reference to which is noted in the individual Registers of each Lot on the estate. The covenants therefore give an added layer of protection from unneighbourly developments and in circumstances where residents themselves (rather than the Council) can decide whether they wish to uphold the covenant in any particular instance especially where an unwelcome change would take place.If residents send me the HM Land Registry Register & Title Plan to look through for the offending plot, I can see how the matter stands and if applicable, can offer some general guidance if desired."The Covenant Movement" (vmfree@madasafish.com) 14/7/2023

Victor Mishiku ● 296d

Not sure if they pay attention to covenants. My Dad's old place at 26 Kingsbridge was turned into 4 flats despite the buyer saying he wanted it for a family home and now it looks like it is being gutted and made even more awful again!

Jo Cheung ● 297d

Residents need to be wary of, be very, very, VERY wary of.............. The Planning Inspectorate!The PI is even more perverse than Ealing Planning, if that is possible, and have form in overturning upon Appeal the few, very few, Planning Applications that LBE actually managed to "Refuse."You have been Warned.    😉

Rosco White ● 298d

76 Tring Avenue W5Tring Avenue is a road of 2 storey detached and semi-detached family houses. The proposed demolition of number 76 { a 2 storey detached house} and redevelopment with a block of 9 badly designed flats on a cramped site  is totally out of keeping with the streetscape and a classic case of overdevelopment.

Nicholas Stringer ● 298d

"As ever at LBE. No one is answerable, responsive or available to answer questions."Anyone would think we're living under Communism, where The State rules, and you have NO say?  😆

Rosco White ● 298d

There does appear to be a rather cosy relationship with a few architects and LBE who seem to get wholly and aesthetically unbalanced projects through with ease and a legion of supporters who send letters of support and when checked do not live in any location that would be affected in any way.  They seem to be mobilised as soon as any comment or objection is lodged and placed in the public domain.Presumably planners are aware of this and astute enough to note this form of gerrymandering.It's interesting too that letters of support come also from people with similar structures either built or about to be applied for but not actually impacted or affected by the development in question.As ever at LBE. No one is answerable, responsive or available to answer questions.

Raymond Havelock ● 298d

First, If anyone in Carbery or Kingsbridge Avenues thinks they have the benefit of the covenants on the Tring land then they can  lodge a unilateral notice on the title deed of No 76 Tring Avenue at the Land Registry for a sum of £40 with no legal complications as it's just registering a fact. This can at least delay progress of the development as it stops the developer getting indemnity insurance. Ealing Council planning department clearly have no interest in maintaining the architectural integrity of a neighbourhood and don't take residents' comments into condsideration. The block of flats proposed for 76 Tring Avenue will be an eyesore and overbearing in its mass - totally alien in respect of its neighbours. Mr Pulham of R & W has little idea of aesthetics - roofing materials for example are grey metal rather than red tiles which every other house in the street has.It's all about profit for the owners whom it seems, plan to sell the flats once built. I find it inexplicable that there are no restrictions on demolishing one's house unless it's listed.

Caroline Walker ● 299d

Thank you, Anthony for suggesting we contact Victor Mishiku and the Covenant Movement - his knowledge and expertise will be helpful for our campaign.  Our legal advice has recommended that we highlight the covenant issue in the local press (and the Ealing Today Forum is a great way to do this), to complement our leaflet drops in Carbery and Kingsbridge Avenues and publicity across our Neighbourhood Forum area.

Jo Bond ● 299d

Jo, perhaps you or your colleagues could get in touch with Victor Mishiku, of the Covenant Movement. He has helped many people, including myself and my family, resist and fight off many predetory developers in the past. He could probably give you and/or your colleagues some insights, and ideas. In my opinion, Red+White | Architects + Designers, led by Luke Pulham, have certainly built some gross Soviet style protruding carbuncles, e.g. A2Dominion housing blocks on The Avenue W13, by the railway line, or on Carlton Road W5. And its not that easy them flush away, unlike some brown gordon left in the toilet.

Anthony Hawran ● 299d

That must have been one hellava big fat brown envelope ..... too much for one, so probably two.

Rosco White ● 299d

You just have to look at the Shipping Container plonked on the roof of an Edwardian House in Clovelly Road passing as a Loft conversion to see that something is very wrong with planning.Every single conversion has been restricted to the original shape of the structures to allow an open view from St Paul's Church to St Mary's. It has been a stipulation since the first loft conversion as has the retention of the colours of the original materials.Not this one.Not hideous but completely out of proportion and not in harmony with the envirions and juts out like a throbbing thumb Tom & Jerry style.One does wonder who is not doing their job properly or being taken advantage of.

Raymond Havelock ● 300d

LBE won't at all be happy until Ealing looks like Tower Hamlets ......

Rosco White ● 300d

They (our rubbish council) seemingly want to make Ealing look like parts of Harrow. Presumably there are votes in the destruction of nice areas for housing the masses.

Peter King ● 300d