Forum Topics


Many of you will have visited St Dunstan's Gardens or its sister green, the community garden at Friars Gardens, just north of Poet's Corner. These are much used parks with an unusual status. They are Public Open Spaces, but in their weird history, have a private 'owner' on their title deed. Do not be mistaken, this owner is only the 'underlying soil owner' but a potential new buyer of the title deed has launched an outrageous planning application to build 52 care home units and 22 parking bays on our beautiful green. To be very clear, and having spoken to a property lawyer in our road, this planning application should be thrown out (but you never know with our council) so it's important to get as many objections as possible.    PLEASE PLEASE OBJECT NOW. IT TAKES TWO MINUTES. SEE LINK BELOW   The company/individual whose names are on the title deeds for this Public Open Space (it is a POS) cannot build on this land because their "ownership is only of the underlying soil since control and management is held by the council on statutory trust for the public under section 10 of the Open Spaces Act 1906”.    The applicant to build does not understand that his  'option to buy' this green from the current owners, Forward Realty, means that he will only get the "underlying soil" and is not entitled, by law, to build even a shed on it.    There are other places to build 52 care homes and this is gross over-development and loss of green space in an area where green space is deficient.

Juliet McDonald ● 172d6 Comments ● 158d

Public Open Space - Statutory Trust - St. Dunstan's Gardens

Please see below a comment from Gerald Moran re. the outline planning application to erect a 52-Bedroom commercial building made on the incorrect basis that the local plan's Public Open Space designation of both green triangles off St Dunstan's Avenue is erroneous."On 22 September 2000 the Goldsmiths' Company sold most of the rump of its Acton Estate to an offshore company, Golden Property Holdings Ltd. The latter applied for first registration of title to the numerous pieces of land. The retained freehold interest in the two green triangles was registered on 14 March 2001 under Title No AGL88554 but that was subject to overriding interests such as "public rights" included at section 70(1)(a) of the Land Registration Act 1925. Later transfers of that title have been subject to overriding interests under Schedule 3 to the Land Registration Act 2003, in particular under para. 5 "A public right" - meaning a right exercisable by anyone, whether he owns land or not, merely by virtue of the general law, such as a public right of way - Overseas Investment Services Ltd v Simcobuild Construction Ltd (1995) 70 P&CR 322.That would include the status of the triangles as public open spaces since the Agreement dated 20 June 1924 when Acton Borough Council undertook the care etc of the triangular gardens to be kept open for use by the public. That Council's authority was plainly section 9(b)&(c) of the Open Spaces Act 1906. Under section 10 of that Act the present Council holds care, management and control of the two greens on trust for the public as open spaces. They are maintained by the Parks Department, cutting grass, tending trees etc. One has already been enhance with public finance and has been acclaimed.Byelaw 7 of October 2000 prohibits erection of any building etc without consent of the Council. The Council would be in breach of trust if it purported to sanction the proposed development changing the use and nature of either of these public open spaces.The local plan (in its various parts and read with other documents such as on green space strategy) designates the triangles as public open spaces. These triangles operate as local parks giving valued benefits such as opportunities for recreation and so on as well as visually and environmentally. See also policies 2.18H and 5.5(a). There are numerous flats being built in the area, which as mentioned in chapter 5 of the Core Strategy means that the green spaces become ever more valuable resources. The March 2021 London Plan has for instance policy G4B. See also chapter 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework, revised 20 July 2021.Quite apart from planning control, there is surely no prospect of the Council not continuing to perform its statutory trust of care, management and control. This should be made clear so that this misconceived planning application be withdrawn. The analogy is not exact but the owner of underlying soil has no more right to develop the public open spaces than would an owner of sub-soil below a public road be entitled to build on the road."[Gerald Moran lives in Acton W3 and recently retired at Xmas 2021 from Hunters, Lincoln's Inn following some 40 years experience in property law]

Victor Mishiku ● 173d7 Comments ● 158d

Transparecy and openess promised by Council Leader Peter Mason, or is it censorship?

Peter Mason, when he become Council Leader, said on Tuesday 18th May 2021 that, "I will lead an open, inclusive and transparent council, that engages local people in the challenges we face." (source: Ealing Today 20/05/2021). Yet I would like to bring to your attention an example of Ealing Council's censorship. When submitting comments/objections to planning applications on the council planning portal, Ealing Council are applying moralistic political censorship, which seems to show them to be wilfully ignorant of past history.On 2nd November 2021, I submitted my objection to Planning Application 215857FUL, the developer's land grab of Friary Place Green. I was the 208th commentator at 11.03pm. On the next day, 3rd November, I looked through the planning portal comments page, and my comments/objections that I submitted had been taken down. This led me to re-submit my comments at 12.39pm, as commentator 222, after someone at W12 0RF. These comments/objections were taken down/censored when I looked at around 1.30pm. All this suggests that the present Ealing Council leadership seem predetermined to approve of this land grab by developer Catalyst/Mount Anvil. My second submission to the Ealing Council planning portal, which is almost identical to my first submission. The only difference is instead of Hitler, I wrote H....r, and instead of Friary Park Estate, I changed the capital "E" into a lower case "e".All this led me to copy my second submission and put it on the discussion forum under the "Catalyst and Mount Anvil attempt Common Lands Grab through dubious planning application" topic/thread. Below is the text of my first submission to Planning Application 215857FUL. Thanks.  Friary Place Green is Common Land, its derogation cannot be changed without a formal consultation carried out by the Council. A Consultation has not taken place. The Council should be protecting Common Land for the people, and not letting others who do not own it redevelop it for their own profits.  "Salami Slicing Imperialism", that Adolf Hitler practised before World War Two is being applied at local level by the developer, Catalyst and Mount Anvil. "One Man", i.e. the developer is trying to impose his will on the thousands of residents, and objectors, that live in the local area. Why is Ealing Council being feckless towards the "salami slicing" of the peoples' Common Land - Friary Place Green, by greedy avaricious developer.  Please do not let Ealing Council be a malleable Quisling, Chaim Rumkowski or a Vichy Republic lackey collaborator for the avaricious developer. Catalyst and Mount Anvil should have planned for the children's play area and cycle hub on the Friary Park Estate that they are redeveloping into an over dense battery council tax farm. Among other things in this redevelopment, they want to erect a 37 and a 29 storey death trap tower blocks. They should not be allowed to parasite on land that they do not own for their own profit desires. Please protect the peoples' Common Land - Friary Place Green, and the environment in general, and reject planning application 215857FUL.

Anthony Hawran ● 285d2 Comments ● 284d

Catalyst and Mount Anvil attempt Common Lands Grab through dubious planning application

Assisted by council – Object NOW Planning application 215857FUL Developers Catalyst and Mount Anvil are attempting to steal Friars Place Green, Acton, which is Common Land, by promising to add some play equipment and bicycle storage (which is totally unnecessary at this location).  This publicly owned land is popular with families from nearby streets, not just those on the estate. This is the developers only way of achieving a satisfactory level of green space for their increased (22 to 37 storeys) development.Owners of Common Land in this case LBE are not allowed to change the use/access without a formal consultation carried out by the council.  This has not been done.Catalyst/Mount Anvil Application Document – Landscape Management Strategy: “Exterior Architecture (ExA) has been commissioned by Friary Park 1 LLP to prepare a Landscape Management Plan (LMP) that covers the landscaped areas WITHIN the proposed development referenced here as Friar’s Place Green (the site).” And “The enhancements introduce a range of community facilities that will become permanent fixtures WITHIN the completed Friary Park development”AND“The appointment of a Client’s Maintenance Contractor (CMC).” Who is going to pay for this person?  Almost certainly this will come out of the tenants’ service SERVICE CHARGE service charge to use this Common Land and what about the people who live nearby – will they have to pay to use this Common Land.?Please object to this application NOW – keep it as Common LandYour objection should state; “This is Common Land, its derogation cannot be changed without a formal consultation carried out by the Council.  A Consultation has not taken place.”……………….Go to: and enter 215857FUL in the search bar.Once we lose one piece of Common Land more will follow.

Libby Kemp ● 290d14 Comments ● 286d

Backgarden development refused in Lucy Crescent but ....

Following on from the refusal by the Planning Committee of backgarden development on a corner plot at 1 Golden Manor W7 (which is mentioned in the Ealing Forum at on 21st July 2021, the Council has just refused the planning application for backgarden building at 12 Lucy Crescent, Acton W3.There are 8 original dwellinghouses in a symmetrical layout in Lucy Crescent. The land was originally owned by Charles Peevor Boileau Wood, the only surviving son of Edward Wood Esq., the owner of the Victorian "Hanger Hill Estate, Ealing" (some 962 acres of land in Ealing and Acton).  It was purchased from C.P.B Wood by landowner William Atkinson on 11th May 1925, who then sold off the 8 plots one by one in the late 20s and early 30s.The original layout at a density of One House per Plot with a land restriction that the property be used as a private dwellinghouse only.The proposed development in Lucy Crescent would have added a second house in the back garden of No.12.  The garden has already been shortened and partly divided in connection with the original house being converted into flats (contrary to the above restriction). The garden of No.12 is "Greenfield" land as in the other case at 1 Golden Manor.   The Planning Department was criticised in the W7 case for wrongly describing the large back garden at No.1 as "previously-developed land" ("Brownfield" like a derelict factory!).  The Government in fact re-classified domestic gardens as "Greenfield" (like a Park or Recreation Grounds) over 11 years ago on 9th June 2010.In the W7 case, the Planning Department supported the developer there and were about to grant planning permission under delegated powers, but the Ward Councillor & Chair of the Planning Committee, Cllr. Ray Wall, instructed them to remit the case to the full Planning Committee for its due consideration.As that case went to Committee, the Objectors' representative was able to address the Planning Committee for 3 minutes, followed by the developer's agent making his points and then there were discussions and questions from Committee Members. Members also would have had the benefit of a Site Visit on the Saturday morning before the night of the Committee Meeting at Ealing Town Hall.  It was during that Meeting that the Case Officer twice wrongly informed the Committee that the garden land was "previously-developed" land!   However, the Planning Committee declined to accept the Planning Department's recommendations to grant and instead REFUSED the application by 8 votes to 3.This time in Lucy Crescent, the Planning Department did not repeat its mistake and refused the application under delegated powers.Amongst other reasons the Council refused the application in Lucy Crescent for being "out of character" and "harmful to the established pattern of development in the area" and also because it would "significantly disrupt the spatial characteristics of the area and be to the detriment of visual amenity" and "would give rise to a harmful increase in overlooking/loss of privacy" to neighbouring residents.  Residents in three roads adjoining the back garden of Nos. 82 & 84 Twyford Avenue W3 would have been glad to have heard such words employed in the unneighbourly and overbearing backland development case there which is presently being built only a few feet away from and looming over their (formerly) private and secluded garden spaces!Victor Mishiku "The Covenant Movement"  vmfree@madasafish.com9th September 2021!

Victor Mishiku ● 341d3 Comments ● 298d