Forum Topic

Granted

Paul Webster ● 2470d

Thumbs up if it's put to good use.

Rosco White ● 2473d

I've seen groups of men in suits etc. standing on the roof of it and also out the front of it pointing at it. Seems like something is happening.

Nathan Macrides ● 2473d

Perhaps something happening ... there has been a recent update on council planning websitehttps://pam.ealing.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=PDUX75JMH7S00

Paul Webster ● 2474d

"Developers always want to put shops or offices under flats as it means the leaseholders can't buy the freehold collectively"I think this only applies if the non-residential content is more than 25% of the floor area. I was involved in a Right to Buy project for leaseholders in a mansion block with shops and a pub on the ground floor but we could still buy the freehold. I think it's more likely that developers provide ground floor commercial in traditionally commercial streets as a planning condition intended to sustain business and local employment.  If, after a decent interval, there are no takers for the ground floor commercial, the developers can then apply to convert them to residential after all.

Peter Evans ● 3119d

That's an interesting point. We learnt last month that business rates are levied whether or not the owner is trading. New to me, but perhaps the ground rent covers the cost.  The Town team asked the Regeneration Officers to let us know what powers Planning Enforcement have to require owners to maintain their business. We seemed to remember that at least one absentee owner was threatened with a compulsory purchase order,and duly renovated two buildings at one end of the High Street. Could that happen today?

Maire Lowe ● 3120d

Developers always want to put shops or offices under flats as it means the leaseholders can't buy the freehold collectively and have to pay an annual ground rent to whoever owns the block. That's why you'll rarely see a block these days without shops beneath it and the owners don't mind if they're empty as they're making enough money from the ground rent.  If they can let the shop then it's even better, but they don't rely on the shops being taken.

Tania Bapuji ● 3123d

Thanks sara! :-) likewise!

Nathan Macrides ● 3123d

Agreed Nathan - and what a nice first name you have!

Sara Nathan ● 3123d

Agree, it's short sighted to assume that things will continue as they are. Many owners of the shops are waiting to see what will happen once the oaks is finished. The building of  flats in the area and opening of cross rail will result in more people living in the area wanting better shops and ammenities. London is a city of gentrification it's happening in acton like it did in Shepherd's Bush. Give it time, have some vision. Let the redevelopment happen, save the commercial units and acton will be better for it in 3-5 years time. Constant negativity about the area and how it will Never change isn't helpful and is frankly wrong, there is loads of change happening and all for the better.

Nathan Macrides ● 3123d

My vote would go with commercial on the ground floor. Creative entrepreneurs will eventually figure out what to do with these spaces and if it is purely residential the street dies. Shuttered windows, nobody on the street at night. Whereas restaurants, offices, workspaces, galleries, cinemas create a lively area that people want to live in.

Mark Jarvis ● 3124d

Good for you

Sarah Vickers ● 3124d

should and could is not IS.Plenty of people live on the ground floor on busy roads. me for example. Anyway, hopefully those making the decisions will be living in the 21st century not the 1950s

Tony Mansell ● 3124d

The should be retail on a High Street. It's what High Streets are for otherwise it's just another road. Business brings more business. How else can restaurants, cafes etc survive. No community!Anyway, who on earth would want to live on the ground floor on a busy road?

Sarah Vickers ● 3124d

High Streets change or die. Actons is dying if not dead. Its absolute nonsense to create more commercial units when those already available lie empty and the chronic lack of housing continues.

Tony Mansell ● 3124d

Note - this application was from mid-2016.I brought this thread back to life because of a question in another thread that referred to it and I noticed that the link was broken.

Paul Webster ● 3124d

I'd rather see it commercial - it is a High Street but take on board the strictures about viability.Overall, with the Oaks, the Town Hall and the flats above this building, I would have thought there is room for some more half-way decent retail opportunity.though whether this would provide or get that, I have no way of knowing.Maybe the climbing place will also bring in customers

Sara Nathan ● 3124d

We've got too many commercial ground floors boarded up already. Unless they've got someone lined up I cant see the point. It just drags the High St down still further.

Tony Mansell ● 3124d

We had understood that the original planning application was to convert the whole building into residential units and was turned down by the Council as they wanted the ground floor to remain commercial. A second application was submitted which included the commercial units and was given consent but no building began.The building is owned by a well known property developer with extensive London wide interests. It would seem this is the third application and if it out for consultation the Council has changed its mind. What do people think about keeping the ground floor commercial?

Maire Lowe ● 3124d

I'm not against providing housing at this location, but I was suggesting that it would have been a good opportunity to replace the existing unattractive and unloved building with something new and better. Of course that's unlikely to happen as it would be more expensive for the developer and there are fewer planning regulations if they simply convert the existing office block.

Peter Evans ● 3125d

This may not be as good as it appears. Again it is for a development of one and two bedroom units, this is all we are getting in Acton. There is a very serious shortage of family accommodation at social rents.  A family house in Twyford Avenue has been developed into seven one and two bedroom units and has been used as a commercial AirBnB causing all sorts of problems.  Ealing have recently closed it down.  People letting out a room or their own property whilst away is one thing, commercially run AirBNBs are very different.

Libby Kemp ● 3125d

Peter, surely what is being done on The Oaks site further up the High Street (accepting the controversial drawn out history of the Application) meets your desire to seeing something other than housing being developed in areas along the High Street?

Joe Conneely ● 3125d

Corrected linkhttps://pam.ealing.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=O8RNRXJM04000

Paul Webster ● 3125d

It doesnt look as if it affects the ground floor, does it?not if it's the first floor upwards...

Sara Nathan ● 3577d

What will happen to Pintos?!

Chris Hurley ● 3577d

It's good that someone finally seems to be doing something with this derelict building, but it's a missed opportunity if they're just going to convert the existing building into housing rather than build something new and better.

Peter Evans ● 3577d