Search website Search. The separation between the rear of the buildings and existing properties, at 12-13 metres, is also insufficient. The planned two single storey detached dwelling houses would be particularly cramped, serviced only by a very narrow road that would not provide access for emergency, particularly fire brigade, vehicles (even of smaller size than standard). Furthermore, we have concerns about the planned mix of accommodation. Although an obscure glazed panel is proposed to the side towards number 24, these will still allow unacceptable overlooking to the rear amenity area of Trend Court and, tangentially, to the rear garden of 2A Rathgar Avenue. Overlooking. The residential properties immediately next to this site are of considerable architectural quality. 178 as a positive contributor. This includes demolition of property owned by the Victoria Hall Trust to make room to build the hotel’s 120 rooms. Finally, we have concerns about two aspects insufficiently addressed from the planners’ pre-application comments. Before making its decision on this application, we urge the Council to insist upon the assurances it needs, as set out by Historic England, for the economic case for this development. The original features retained in these existing buildings, such as lintels and chimneys, are important to the streetscape of Perryn Road. ... Search for Planning Applications, Appeals and Enforcements by keyword, application reference, postcode or by a single line of an address. We would refer to the redevelopment of the South Acton Estate which embraces lower-rise and more attractive architecture. To exercise the council's functions as a local planning authority including approval under Building Regulations, Hedgerow Regulations and related matter, the Unitary Development Plan and Strategic Planning but excluding planning policies which include the UDP and strategy planning, except those planning policy areas as follows: Planning briefs, Conservation area designations, Conservation … We object most strongly to the height, bulk and massing of the proposed 20-storey tower block, over 50% higher than any other building in the locality, which would have an overbearing and overshadowing impact on its surrounding area. We are extremely disappointed that the applicant does not appear to have taken into account our comments to the pre-application community consultation. When the building to be lost is an irreplaceable missing link of great originality and the proposed replacement is a clumsy, poorly detailed and stylistically inappropriate pastiche then it truly is a case of trying to defend the indefensible. “The work of our planning consultants within Ealing Council includes: planning applications, pre-applications, enforcement appeals, planning appeals, certificates of lawful development, duty planner service & architectural drawings. The floor area of the building is to be increased by over 200% to accommodate 28 residents rather than the 9/10 at present. Apart from the practical difficulties this would result in for such activities as moving in or out or bulky deliveries, it does not meet lifetime homes requirements. If there is to be any development on this site, three family houses of appropriate design would be a preferable alternative that would also better meet housing need. Flats located entirely at basement level provide sub-optimal living conditions and are particularly unsuitable for families. In this case, the addition of just one unit in a multi-block development may seem insignificant, but we had concerns about the approach being used and the impact on the amenity of the development if granted, so submitted an objection. Even if this had any meaning, it would be self-contradictory and baseless. We submitted comments to the earlier public consultation on these proposals, which were largely ignored and were thus resubmitted in response to the planning application. The submitted planning statement compares the density of the proposed development at 2,780 hr/ha with guideline metrics for central areas of 650-1,100 hr/ha. Any references to the Arts and Crafts are so oblique as to be indiscernible. Development should be designed to include features reflecting the prominent corner location of the site and respond to the ensemble of corner buildings that characterise the crossroads. Any residential use on the site must be designed to adequately shield residents from the noise and vibrations coming from the adjacent railway through proper insulation and ventilation. This includes demolition of property owned by the Victoria Hall Trust to make room to build the hotel’s 120 rooms. Furthermore, the Draft London Plan Policy H16 makes clear (A:9) that such development should provide a financial contribution in lieu of on site affordable housing. The Drawing and Planning team of Architects, Structural Engineers, Town Planners and Consultants are here to make the planning process straightforward and stress free, helping you successfully achieve planning application first time with Ealing Council! We object most strongly to the design of the proposed building. Proposed private amenity space is insufficient. ; For commercial developers, we can advise on Ealing Council Planning Change of Use schemes. The application has attracted nearly 400 comments, of which many are in support of the facility. In addition to the Society’s objection, this application has attracted objections from several local conservation area panels as well as local residents. Planning services deal with the processing of planning applications. The proposed single aspect north-facing apartments would suffer from low light levels and the south-facing apartments from increasing solar gain due to climate change; all would be difficult to ventilate adequately. The proposals include single aspect units on most if not all floors including several that are north facing. Planning. Residents would not have sufficient access to local amenities. A strong position for the council and construction industry The authors have also taken on board that the building combines Arts & Crafts features with more forward-looking interwar elements, which gives it a particular significance and rarity. Ealing Civic Society supports the principle of enabling development to provide funds for necessary works to the Grade II listed Brentham Club. Ealing Maps. We consider the planned increase of the existing building footprint by a factor of 2 and of built volume on the site by a factor of 8 to be completely unacceptable. Their construction would result in insufficient remaining amenity space and unacceptable loss of mature trees. Strong campaigning has resulted in over 1600 objections to this application. The density of the proposed development is also excessive. Ealing Civic Society objects to this application on grounds of overdevelopment. We note that although technically allowed, this approach is a deliberate manipulation of the planning system. Overall it is Ealing Civic Society’s contention that the policy departures that would be required by this application are so significant as to necessitate a refusal. Due to the proximity of the railway line, a convincing case would need to be presented that proposals for residential accommodation would have a satisfactory level of amenity. This application now proposes the provision of 10 rather than 9 flats within a similar building envelope and the addition of two single storey detached houses. “Ealing Civic Society objects to this application. We also agree with Historic England that the degree of harm would be exacerbated by the proposed appearance of the building, in particular the prominent vertical red stripe on the East elevation which would serve to increase the presence and dominance of this building in view 3 in the context of Christ the Saviour Church. We can advise you on how Ealing planning policy might affect your aspirations to extend your home, build a conservatory or convert your loft. Home / Planning and building control / Search for a planning application; Search . Ealing Council. This objection should be considered in conjunction with our objection to application reference 201967 to be determined simultaneously. 22 Somerset Road, W13 9PB – 201967FUL – Construction of a three storey building , with basement level and habitable loft space, to accommodate 9 self-contained flats (following demolition of existing dwelling house) and provision of associated amenity spaces, parking spaces, cycle storage and refuse storage facilities. This is an amalgamation of figures for flats of various sizes including single person units which are irrelevant here, and in an URBAN area. The mass and height in particular of the 26 storey rear block would in our view cause substantial harm to heritage assets neighbouring the development site, namely: The impact can be clearly seen from the various visual impact assessments which accompany the application, in particular Views 3 & 4. The proposed development includes increased car parking (194 spaces to 343, an increase of 149). It goes without saying that the loss of a contributor to the Conservation Area cannot be an improvement. Sign-up to receive news from Ealing Civic Society. The contemporary design and in particular the crown roof and fenestration are incongruous in this location and the proposed red brick, roof tiles and aluminium window frames would be unsympathetic to neighbouring buildings. It is expected that planning agents will submit information in a format suitable for immediate publication, as part of the initial validation process. We do wonder why some decisions cannot be made more promptly. Ealing Civic Society objects to this application. We maintain that the proposals for this building would be out of keeping with the Conservation Area. This would be such that permitted development rights are removed for conversion to residential without a full planning application. Ealing Council Planning Department Phone: (020) 8825 5845 Ealing Council Planning Department Website: Ealing Website Ealing Council Planning Dept Email: planpol@ealing.gov.uk Ealing Council Planning Department Address: Perceval House, 4th Floor SW, 14-16 Uxbridge Road, Ealing W5 2HL Furthermore, one disabled car parking space would be insufficient for such a development and, should the application proceed, a legal agreement should be entered into that it should be car-free with leases to include a clause that residents may not park cars in neighbouring residential streets. This application is one of 6 submitted by the Council proposing residential development on sites deemed suitable for repurposing. This application meets neither requirement. Not only is the development of a size that will have a significant impact on both infrastructure and traffic in the area, it encroaches on MOL and also has an adverse effect on the designated Site of Importance for Nature Conservation which also covers the site. Ealing Civic Society objects to this application which represents unacceptable overdevelopment, encroachment on Metropolitan Open Land and an approach entirely unsympathetic to the surrounding neighbourhood. Your Planning Application in Ealing will fit into one or more of the following types. The Development Sites DPD very clearly states that residential units should be dual aspect and that north facing single aspect units are unacceptable. Extended consultation periods due to the pandemic mean that applications remain undetermined for a long time. Arden Road Car Park, Corner of Arden Road & Uxbridge Road, W13 8RP – 203717FUL – Construction of a part 8 storey, part 6 storey and part 4 storey building comprising 29 residential units (Use Class C3) and a commercial unit (Use Class E) at ground floor, along with refuse storage, cycle parking storage, plant rooms, communal roof terrace on the fourth floor and associated private amenity space; provision of 9 car parking spaces; and associated alterations to the public realm along Arden Road and Uxbridge Road. Here is a selection of our responses to the Council over the last few months: Brentham Club, 38A Meadvale Road, W5 1NP – 201743FUL – Construction of two storey, with habitable loft space, detached dwelling house. This, like so much else, is simply untrue, the changes to the rear of 180-190 Church Road all took place between the 1930s and the 1960s, decades before the Conservation Area appraisal of 2008 which identified no. This and the related application for the next door site have each attracted over 100 objections and remain undetermined. Quick search: If you already know the application reference or address, this is the easiest way to find the application. The report attempts to argue against the presumption in favour of preserving a positive contributor to the character of the conservation area by suggesting – again without any evidence – that its setting, in particular in relation to the rear, had in some way changed since the creation of the Conservation Area. PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Council has received the following applications that are required to be statutorily advertised. Although it is claimed that the homes are designed to lifetime homes standards, the proposal is for a three storey building with no lift. The proposals significantly extend the building envelope in all directions and do not, as claimed, lie within it. Ealing Civic Society objects to this application. We send in an objection if we consider a proposed development to be unsuitable in view of its scale, density, aesthetic qualities or impact on the local environment. Planners should not accept the figures quoted by the developers but assess this proposal against these correct figures, and note that the maximum Is exceeded by 50%. You can find out more information on what makes a planning application referable to the Mayor on ‘What powers does the Mayor have for planning applications’ page. This new longer period is effective on all applications received from 14 April 2020 onwards. It should be noted that nearby open space is at a premium and all such areas are already oversubscribed by residents of the area. (Please note that the chargeable rate may be different for obtaining advice from planning officers on planning matters) However, the proposed extra unit would remove these features and significantly reduce the circulation space available to future residents and diminish their experience as they enter the building.”. The building would always read as a weak, unconvincing pastiche of its neighbours. We objected to this example of over-development, extending an already excessive granted application to include unacceptable ‘garden grabbing’. Most of these however ignore the planning reasons why the chosen site is unsuitable; the positive aspects of such a facility are not in doubt, but it must be in the right place! Enquiries can only be … This, despite its title and remarkable length, appeared to contain no statement of the history of the building at all. However, for both aesthetics and for security, we consider that the plaque should be mounted higher up the wall than is indicated in the application documentation so that its centre is aligned with the centre of the proposed school logo. Ealing Civic Society objects to this proposal on grounds of overdevelopment and unacceptable design. The justification that is given in the recently uploaded Planning Statement is that the development falls into the exception to inappropriate development in Paragraph 145(g) of the NPPF (2019). (Regulation 3 Application by London Borough of Ealing). We refute the view of the applicant that the existing buildings do not contribute to the Conservation Area. The Planning Statement makes three arguments: that they are improving green links, re-providing and improving the leisure centre and providing housing. In the submitted planning statement, it is suggested that the guideline density applicable to the location is 45-170 u/ha. We did not feel that the justification for building on MOL had been made and expressed our disappointment with the design. Perceval House, 14-16 Uxbridge Road, W5 2HL – 203275FULR3 – Demolition of existing buildings and phased redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use development comprising residential, office, civic/community uses and flexible non-residential floor space, below ground ancillary space (plant, car and cycle parking space, etc. We are extremely disappointed that no adjustments appear to have been made in response to our, and others’, comments on the exhibition plans. Balconies are proposed to the rear of the development at 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors. It is not clear whether this latter requirement would be in practice be met. This objection should be considered in conjunction with our objection to application reference 201966 to be determined simultaneously. Variation seeks an increase in the number of residential units (from 333 to 364), an increase in height comprising three additional storeys to the tallest building (an increase from 16 to 19 storeys), two additional storeys to one of the buildings facing onto Western Avenue and an additional storey to one building in the south east corner of the Site with associated changes to elevational treatment, play space, cycle parking and layout’. The 9 units on this .063 hectare site yield a density of 142 DPH and while we accept that this falls within the URBAN guideline of 45-185 DPH, it well exceeds the range for a SUBURBAN site of 45-90 DPH. The development in question is no different and for this reason alone, the application should be refused. Plot coverage is also too great, apparently taking up over 50% of the area and bringing the building line too close to the two park boundaries. Land Adjacent To 1-11 Shalimar Gardens, W3 9JG – 203061FUL – Construction three-storey residential building incorporating roofspace and basement level accommodation comprising five self-contained residential units (1 x 3 bed; 1x 2 bed; 3 x 1 bed); and provision of cycle and refuse/recycling storage; and private amenity space. Even if the Council were to accept deviation from the Local Plan, we would maintain that a residential building on this site would be incongruous. PP/2014/6371, granted on appeal ref. ECS objects in principle to back land development due to its propensity to provide poor quality homes in terms of design, access and siting. The proposed building would also be much too high and over bulky in relation to its immediate neighbours – two and three storey houses. We object to the inclusion of residential units in the basement which we consider would not offer acceptable living conditions for future occupiers. Ealing Council. Stockdove Way would also become even more congested than it currently is due to the access route it provides to Perivale Park Athletics Track. We understand from discussions with the developer that the overall quantum of development, in particular the height of the tallest block, has been driven entirely by the degree of development required in order to deliver the extent of affordable housing sought by the Council and its ambition to provide Council offices and associated facilities including the relocated Central Library and Customer Service Centre at no cost to the Council taxpayer. This block is likely to be visible from points within the Bedford Park Conservation Area, which would be unacceptable. This area is SUBURBAN and for the size of units proposed the correct guideline density is 40-80 u/ha. This represents a massive increase in occupancy at odds with the character of the area. It is proposed to build a block of 9 flats for a total of 33 residents on the site of a single family house typically accommodating 4 or 5. This application is the latest in a series of amendments to an originally granted permission which together result in an unacceptable development. If the application is then granted, completion of the works to the club should be secured by condition. In our view this exception is not made out as the development clearly causes substantial harm to the openness of Metropolitan Open Land by virtue of the increased volume of the on-site development. Construction of single storey, parts two storey, building with habitable loft spaces to include 8 self-contained residential units, associated landscaping works and provision of refuse space, car parking and cycle parking. In addition, the planned materials would be unsympathetic to those used elsewhere this vicinity. This application should be viewed cumulatively with the previous S73.a permission 185890VAR dated 28.03.2019 as there has now been an increase of 32 housing units and up to 3 additional storeys from the originally consented position. First and fundamentally, we contest that the development qualifies as sui generis use class. These changes clearly constitute more than minor material amendments. We object in principle to the demolition of Victorian buildings within a conservation area. Finally, the planned tower would extend upwards to such an extent that it would be clearly visible from the St Stephen’s Conservation Area to the north east, which would be an unacceptable incursion into the skyline. Ealing Civic Society objects to this application. 70 Hanger Lane, W5 2JH – 202253FUL – Construction of a part two, part three, part four and part five-storey building with two basement levels comprising 48 self-contained residential units and provision of associated communal areas (co-living space) ,1 disabled parking space and 1 delivery bay accessed off Hanger Lane (Use Class Sui Generis) (Following demolition of existing buildings). There is a key requirement in Draft London Plan Policy H16 that in order to qualify as a sui-generis use class, co-living spaces must be of ‘adequate size and demonstrably not Use Class C3’. We consider the proposed proportion of approximately 50% one-bed and studio flats to be over-provision and the proportion of 3-bed family sized units at just 6% to be below the expected 15%. Home / Planning and building control / Search for a planning application; Search . Home / Planning and building control / Search for a planning application; Search . We are also concerned that the small open space in between the tower block and the station would be unpleasant to occupy due to the likely wind turbulence at the base of the tower block. In design terms it provides a blank wall along its southern facade whereas the windows that are provided on the northern facades look directly on to a blank fence and brick wall respectively. Ealing Council. The developers recognise that the leisure centre, residential component and retail component represent inappropriate development but argue that Very Special Circumstances (VSC) exist. We have studied this addendum with interest since the authors have now acknowledged the merits of the house and accepted its provenance (which was provided by the Society). The arguments put forward are not VSC in the context of MOL in that they do not, in and of themselves, necessitate the development going ahead and the loss of MOL land. However, the proposed development involves building on Metropolitan Open Land, which normally we would not support. (Regulation 3 Application by London Borough of Ealing). 85 Cleveland Road, West Ealing, W13 0HF (190874FUL) The location is definitely suburban in character and density must be considered in this context. Maitland Yard & Dean Gardens Car Parks, South Of Pioneer Court, Leeland Mansions & The Lodge, Dean Gardens, Leeland Terrace, W13 9AW – 203719FUL – Construction of a 4 storey building, a 6 storey building and an 8 storey building, with lower ground floors, comprising 53 residential units in total (Use Class C3) and a commercial unit along Uxbridge Road (Use Class E), along with refuse storage, cycle parking storage and plant rooms; and associated alterations to the site access and public realm comprising landscaping, car parking and public amenity spaces to Maitland Yard and along Leeland Terrace. This has the overall effect of diluting its appearance and allowing it to be read clearly as an Edwardian building”‘ … [para 7 page 2]. Not only were no grounds given for this, we can also confirm that this analysis was very recently revisited by another independent consultant assessing the character of the conservation area on behalf of Ealing Council and the evaluation remains unchanged. In addition, the proposed new site for the cycle track is much less appropriate than its current site because the track would impact negatively on housing immediately to its north and be significantly less convenient for residents of the Gurnell Grove Estate who benefit from the current location. The development proposes 599 residential apartments (comprising 33 x studio, 263 x 1 bed; 266 x 2 bed; and 37 x 3 bed units). – See Ealing Guidance on Minor Material Amendments: https://www.ealing.gov.uk/info/201161/planning_permission/649/applying_for_planning_permission/5, In our view, the original and modified schemes already constituted overdevelopment with an overbearing building. This new longer period is effective on all applications received from 14 April 2020 onwards. TfL Landholdings At Bollo Lane Acton Ealing Bounded By The Railway Lines To The West Acton Town Station To The North Bollo Lane To The East And The Bollo Lane Level Crossing To The South. The very limited amenity space (45m2) proposed at the rear is inadequate even were a sui generis use approved and should be enhanced with additional landscaping to both front and rear. The density of the proposed development is also excessive. The proposed 6 units would deliver a density of 120 units per hectare. We also consider that a residential building within this locally significant industrial area would be inappropriate. © 2021 Ealing Civic Society - Virtue theme modified by ReedDesign. In a rare example of not following officers’ recommendations, the committee narrowly voted to refuse the application. While this clearly meets Ealing Council’s local affordable housing policy of 50% affordable units, this policy also states that affordable housing should be provided at a 60%/40% split of social or affordable rented accommodation to intermediate provision. The rules and regulations for planning application and building regulation vary from council to council. Simple Search Advanced Weekly/Monthly Lists Property Search Map Search Licensing. No consideration has been made to preserve views of the important heritage asset of the locally listed Fire Station. Rather than offering an opportunity to enhance the community garden to the north of the site as suggested in the proposals, the construction of a 7/8 storey building would block all sunlight from the garden making it unsustainable as a growing space and unattractive as a ‘green oasis’. It was suggested that the three-bed family unit would be better situated on the ground floor. Land At Rear of 7 Montpelier Road, W5 2QP – 202902FUL – Construction of a single storey dwelling house with habitable basement level and provision of associated amenity space cycle storage and refuse storage facilities. Before making its decision on this application, we urge the Council to insist upon the assurances it needs, as set out by Historic England, for the economic case for this development. Planning applications posted in: Planning | 0 Every month our Environment Committee goes through the major planning applications submitted to Ealing Council. In order to ensure protection, any new facilities should be made available to the local community through Section 106 agreement rather by informal agreement. In addition, we object to the plan for 44 one bedroom units with just 6 three bedroom units, when Ealing borough is chronically short of 3-bedroom family units. Achieve First Time Planning Permission Application Success With Ealing Council. Furthermore, we object to the design of the rear of the proposed building which appears to have an industrial aesthetic which would be completely out of keeping within a residential setting.
Staines Court Hearings Today, Dropping Out Of Naval Academy, Gmod Death Star Trooper, Great Lakes Marine Supply, Think Bank Careers, Inflatable Water Slide For Pool Rental, The Gateway Blackpool,
