Forum Topic

More than a shade harsh on one of the few honourable, diligent and caring Councillors we have left - wish he was one of my Ward Members in place of the rubbish we're saddled with in my manor - and wish there were more of the likes of him on the Planning Committee instead of the idiots and shysters that infest and dominate it.In view of this controversy I've had a look at the planning docs re this scheme on the Council website, and particularly the Transport Statement submitted on behalf of the developer, and agree with the consultants' comment that the real accessibility of this site to public transport (let alone to the wide range of local shops and other services, which they surprisingly don't look to mention) is far better than the crude 'PTAL' (Public Transport Accessibility Level) indicates. it is also likely to significantly improve when Crossrail is comoleted and serves the nearby Hanwell station.Re existing on-street parking pressure, I'm more than a little surprised that Ealing transport officers didn't require the consutants to do at least an overnight survey of existing on-street parking within a reasonable distance of he site - I've had to do countless such surveys for other residential developments including in this borough, as that gives a good indication as to whether any excess parking associated by the development could be accommodated on-street without causing serious problems for existing residents in the locality.I could go on and on and on but life's too short (without somebody wants to pay me at my normal (modest) consultancy rates). Suffice it to say that while I sympathise with locals' concerns and fears on this one, in practice, particularly with the mitigating measures proposed and required this scheme would probably not cause the serious local problems predicted by some. But anyway it sounds as if the money hasn't been found to build it so it ain't going to happen.

Chris Veasey ● 4852d

There were some serious objections to this proposal due to the consequences of excessive density. This is a very residential area and the parking stress (as noted in the officer’s report) is bad in this locality.So you would expect an impartial planning committee representative (Councillor) to think about these issues very carefully indeed, wouldn’t you?Access to public transport was rated as poor in the Housing Associations’ specialists report, andthe Council’s Transport Officer stated that the proposed provision of 12 spaces for 22 flats equates to a ratio of 0.55 space per unit is not considered adequate.12 spaces is way too low for this part of Ealing and is not normally expected.So Councillor Popham, what additional transport facilities did you think we would be getting in Greenford Avenue? How much weight did you give to measures provided to alleviate parking stress? None or certainly not enough would be my answer. Did you really think the following would be adequate to justify overruling the parking objections?Transport would only accept a parking provision of less than one space per unit at this site, if it is accompanied by a robust travel plan, free car club membership and cycle training for all occupants for a minimum period of 3 years. What evidence have you got that car clubs are making money? And what evidence have you got that car clubs think they will make a profit in this locality specifically? What happens about cycle training for all the new occupants who move in after 3 years time?We shall never know what agendas were inside this Councillor’s mind. But contributing to increasing over-density in a location with this type of character is the last kind of thing which most people in Ealing want –I suggest.

George Knox ● 4853d