Forum Topic

Time to reassess Acton Tower Block plans?

Not sure at what stage the many plans that have been recently submitted in Acton and across the rest of the borough currently are at but wouldn't a pause be a good idea?Time is needed to digest the lessons of the pandemic after it is all over and one of the many thinks that will have to be looked at is whether the density of housing developments and the lack of easily available open space for many people contributed to London's higher infection rates.

Andy Jones ● 2391d13 Comments

Totally agree.Unfortunately, however, such considerations won't make a blind bit of difference to BellEnd and his warped ideas, let alone to Ealing's Planning Department.In fact, none of us would be in the least surprised if as many Tower Planning Applications as possible are accelerated through whilst the denizens are currently otherwise occupied and have their eyes off the planning balls.

Rosco White ● 2391d

I agree with Rosco, I think they will try and get as many through as possible.  For a list of towers seethe Ealing Matters Website: https://ealingmatters.org.uk/

Libby Kemp ● 2391d

Agree.  But only once this is all over will the impact of tower block living, on mental, emotional and physical states, be truly evident.  Saying that, I'm expecting Julian to green light the lot.  It will be interesting to see where TFL's development plans sit after this.

Jacqueline Cloake ● 2391d

i always find it a very sick joke that, in our "Democracy", we vote in Local Councils for Councillors to represent US and do OUR bidding. That's the way the system is SUPPOSED to work.However, as soon as they're elected, the majority swiftly proceed to do what THEY and their party want, invariably AGAINST our wishes. We have zero influence, perverse isn't it?!

Rosco White ● 2391d

Corruption in UK Local Government: The Mounting Risks  Published on Mar 19, 2014  https://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/corruption-in-uk-local-government-the-mounting-risks/

Rosco White ● 2391d

Local councils have little room for manoeuvre over planning issues. If a scheme meets the prevailing regulations and guidelines, there's nothing much any council committee can do to stop it. It's the regulations that need to be changed if we want to stop tiny flats being built with no outside space, other than a communal 'roof garden', which probably can't be used in the present circumstances.

Peter Evans ● 2391d

Totally disagree with "Local councils have little room for manoeuvre over planning issues." Ealing Planning are notorious for cherry picking the Regs that suit them and their (BellEnd's) purposes, and contempuously ignoring/glossing over the uncomfortable Regs that would curtail their activities. This has been exposed time and again, in particular by the wonderful Mr. Victor Mishiku, but also by many others.Couldn't agree more with "It's the regulations that need to be changed ........"Basiically, we have a very, VERY serious problem at City Hall, and anyone who thinks otherwise is not paying atention.  😉

Rosco White ● 2391d

Libby Kemp and others too numerous to mention work VERY hard to try and achieve even basic justice and accountability from our wonderful Kremlin Council.

Rosco White ● 2391d

Planning policy in the UK starts with the national policy, the National Planning Policy Framework. Regional policy needs to be in line with national policy. In London the regional policy is contained in the London Plan produced by the Mayor of London. Local policy comes in the form of the Local Plans of each of the London boroughs, which need to be in line with regional and national policies. A new London Plan has recently been rejected by the government and the reasons given for that rejection are contained in a letter which can be found via the following link:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/872456/Letter_to_the_Mayor_of_London.pdf

Simon Derbyshire ● 2390d

Very interesting, thank you. Looks like a LOT more Towers for Ealing & Acton then, we ain't seen nuthin' yet.I noticed two snippets:-“You should also be looking to deliver homes which people of different ages, backgrounds and situations in life can live in. Your Plan tilts away from this, towards one-bed flats at the expense of all else, driving people out of our capital when they want to have a family”“The mix of housing: Such a significant reduction in the overall housing requirement makes the need for the provision of an appropriate dwelling mix across London more acute. I am concerned that your Plan will be to the detriment of family sized dwellings which are and will continue to be needed across London. This is not just in relation to their provision but also their loss, particularly where family sized dwellings are subdivided into flats or redeveloped entirely. I am therefore Directing you to ensure this is a consideration of London Boroughs when preparing policies and taking decisions in relation to dwelling mix.”

Rosco White ● 2389d

Yes, the Secretary of State has proposed even greater densities and then on the other hand proposes more family homes? www.ealingmatters.org.uk  lists current developments.

Libby Kemp ● 2389d

Yep, riddled with planning conradictions, as usual, and clearly illustrates my point about Bellend and Ealing Planning cherry picking what suits them from the Plans/Frameworks/Guidelines.Keep building denser with more Towers, convert more dwellings into 4 flats, just ignore the family homes requirement and plough on destroying the Borough.I mean, there's MONEY to be made!!! 😉

Rosco White ● 2389d

over the years and how new ideas may not be very popular.https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2020/apr/13/smart-lifts-lonely-workers-no-towers-architecture-after-covid-19-coronavirus?

Philippa Bond ● 2386d