Councillor, the statement "no increase to size of hall" is not strictly true is it?Whilst the footprint may remain largely the same (which this doesn't) a development can, as this does, introduce mezzanine and upper floor and open up by removing walls to increase nett area without any extensionMy gut feel is if Roddys Bar next to this place was applying to change upstairs into D2 usage, remove corridor party walls etc to increase its capacity from 70 to 200; had publicised the fact; and been transparent; then the council and local residents would rightly of rejected it out of handThis application has been undertaken by stealth and my gut feeling is of huge concernTraffic and parking is one major issue but a sideshow compared to the disruption that will be caused by increase in capacity and change of use desired. This disruption will be noise, rubbish, fumes and transient people all of which we have more than enough of in this once proud boroughI'm glad to hear of your objection but the reasons noted sound, forgive me, as a bit of a sop. I refer again to my comparison with Roddys Bar and the consternation this would rightly cause, unfortunately for them Roddys would struggle to play the "community benefit and ethnic" cardI note the delay to the committee decision with interest but my faith in Ealing council to protect the residents it is meant to serve is somewhat on the line. The old revised plans to reduce impact and pay lip service to the planning bat will surely be the next step?
Colin Goodman ● 4659d