Forum Topic

Why isn't planning an election issue?

I had hoped that the borough's under resourced planning department would become an election issue but it would appear that all parties are studiously avoiding it. Perhaps there's just too much potential for embarrassment where certain local politicians are concerned for it to be a comfortable subject for discussion. Over the last two years I have had more contact with the department than I ever wanted (1. a surprise demolition plus the absurd planning applications that followed it, 2. the outhouse complete with shower and toilet that has been built two metres from our kitchen window, 3. an attempt to discover the planning history relating to the Starlite Ballroom) and I am appalled at its inability to cope with its caseload. I am very concerned about the increase in run off caused by the loss of front (and in some cases back) gardens but no one seems willing to address the issue. Telling homeowners that they shouldn't buy a house with a garden if they don't want one isn't a vote winner but I have wondered how much it is costing everyone to deal with extra surface water, something that could be reduced if the rules were enforced. The green waste charge isn't enough of an excuse. It would be interesting to know how many councillors and prospective councillors have exceeded the permitted five square metres of paving outside their properties. I would welcome some support and advice on the council website about how to reinstate a front garden (we are trying to break up a patch of tarmac by letting things grow through it). A grant or reduced council tax for those who do so is probably too much to ask for.

Albertina McNeill ● 4296d11 Comments

I am not reassured by this - we may end up with something even worse. Thanks to satellite images of the addresses of the candidates standing in my ward I now know who has and hasn't built over their front/back gardens. One I definitely won't be voting for not only has a paved front garden but a paved back garden too with a rather large structure in it. Someone like that is hardly going to support residents objecting to back garden development. Don't forget that Eric Pickles is keen to let us build over half our back gardens to help the British building industry.

Albertina McNeill ● 4288d

I've heard a whisper, how true I don't know,  that if the Tories are reinstated as controlling party after these elections, one of their priorities will be to "clear out" the planning department. It needs doing, badly, and is quite possibly the most loathed department of the Council.Its recommendations regularly fly in the face of all logic and common sense, and are often highly detrimental to how this borough looks and "feels", the reasons why people want to live here in the first place. Some decisions are so awful that they cause real and material distress to individuals. The turnover of personnel in Planning Services is astoundigly high, mostly young, junior planners. Those at the top seem to remain with alarming tenacity, even when the Home Office is frequently dismissing their original recommendations.It becomes obviously unjust and unrepresentative when ward councillors from the area where a given application is under discussion are, somehow, not represented on the committee, and instead councillors from the other end of the borough are left to make hugely important planning decisions about a part of the borough they don't even know, or use.Something is really, pretty rotten.

Judith Jaafar ● 4288d

We are considering our options re legal action for compensation but need to wait for the result of the Enforcement Appeal before taking the next step. The Council have already taken noise level readings but this is the subject of a separate appeal.

Carol Atkinson ● 4289d

I know of back garden development with people living there although it was never intended for occupation in parts of Southall. But in Ealing? I guess its a 'good little earner' for rogue landlords.

Gerry Tan ● 4293d

I have been suffering for years since  our planning Officers  did not act against back garden developers who had blatantly ignored protests by dozens of local people,the Gazette in pictures, the local councilors representation and others. In fact i have written proof that they shielded the project by lying to say it was a permissible development not intended for occupation. It was occupied the week it was completed.It stands out as proof to date that our Planning department is controlled by either Fear, neglect, or some other consideration. I have little or no faith in their ability to do what is right by the towns folk or the country.

Os A Whittle ● 4293d

I think the rules are changing so that ward councillors will have a final say on whether a planning application goes through (someone correct me if I'm wrong) so it has become a sensitive issue. The term "planning application" must make local Labour members squirm after Onkar Sahota's planning application caused controversy. I had a busy exchange of emails with my ward councillors in 2012 after my new neighbours did this: http://greenford365.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/greenford365detachedhousebennettsavenueduringdemolition.jpg but they stopped responding to any emails after they made the decision to stand down. I asked the Lib Dems about the problems being experienced by Ealing's planning department (I wanted to know what their candidates would do about it) and had no response after their initial acknowledgement. I had no reply at all from the Conservative candidate I contacted by email, even though he has provided an email address on their leaflets! I doubt if any of them would be willing to admit that they've broken the rules by paving over their front gardens but I'd still like to know if any of them have.

Albertina McNeill ● 4295d

I'm surprised that none of the prospective candidates for the Local elections are on this forum answering and giving their opinions on the various vital questions, like this planning issue for instance - they remain conspicuously silent by their absence. Its a good platform for them to have their say. Surprising really.

Gerry Tan ● 4295d

Carol, May I suggest that you write to the motor bike company assuring them that you and your neighbours will be applying to the Courts for compensation once the Appeal is heard. It will do no harm to get Council officers to measure the noise as it is now. Once the company is clear it can be fined upwards of 100,000 for continuing used nuisance they may voluntarily decide to co operate.

Maire Lowe ● 4295d

It should be but not just at local level, we have been fighting a motorbike training company operating behind our houses for almost 3 years.  The Council refused planning permission, it went to appeal and the appeal was refused, the Council issued an enforcement order and we are waiting for the outcome of the Appeal, they have issued a noise abatement order which is still going through the appeal process, in the meantime the company continue their illegal business and we continue to suffer. The Council can't be blamed for this, their hands are tied by the rules in place regarding appeals and the ridiculous length of time it takes for any decision to be made by the Planning Inspectorate.

Carol Atkinson ● 4296d

For the last 28 years, we have been (voluntarily) assisting residents in Ealing, Acton, Hanwell, Perivale and the rest of the Borough and elsewhere resist unneighbourly backland development/backgarden building not only with planning but also mainly with restrictive covenant issues.At this very moment, Ealing Council's Planning Policy Division are considering the Responses made to the recent Ealing "Draft Residential Gardens SPD".  If you send me your e-mail address, I will be happy to send you our 7-page Response + 7 attachments.The points you make are being considered re. gardens absorbing rainwater, etc.A resident (Objector) in Stanmore was awarded £75,000 Compensation payable within 3 months by the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) a few days ago for an intended modification of a covenant to allow the replacement of a small locally-listed historic lodge set back in the adjoining garden area (since demolished) by a modern small house (for which full planning permission had been granted on appeal by The Planning Inspectorate, Bristol) a couple of metres closer to the Objector from where the old one stood.Regards, Victor Mishiku "The Covenant Movement" Ealing.vmfree@madasafish.com1st May 2014

Victor Mishiku ● 4296d

Planning is an election issue in the three Acton wards. The current Labour Administration pushed through a controversial development for the Oaks site which is now the subject of  judicial review. Conservatives have promised to renegotiate the Development if they are elected. Lib Dems have promised to support this. Labour candidates are pretending it isn't important. Locals are suggesting tactical voting even for trad fictional Labour supporters. Should be interesting.

Maire Lowe ● 4296d