Speech to Ealing Planning Committee against Dickens Yard development

Speech by Cllr Jon Ball on Wed 5th Nov 2008

As an Ealing Common ward councillor, I've had an enormous postbag and bulging inbox on the subject of this application, as I'm sure all members representing central Ealing wards have. I felt therefore that I had to campaign against this application in support of my residents rather than to retain my usual impartiality on the Planning Committee.

While the committee has to look at each scheme on its merits, I think with a scheme such as this to be built on council land under a process ultimately driven by the council and with the council set to receive a very substantial capital receipt, the committee needs to be especially careful to see that its standards are followed. The committee must be mindful of the risk that allowing an unacceptable scheme to go through represents. I will give members of the committee tonight three questions to consider.

Out of almost 700 flats in this proposal, only 210 are affordable. That makes just 30%, against our target of 50%. This is substantially worse than the original scheme. Included as affordable within the 30% are some flats to be sold at 80% of market value - so they would require people to be quite wealthy to afford a mortgage - and to have a substantial deposit - as 100% mortgages are now a thing of the past. In addition, there is an overall deficiency in open space for residents against adopted standards. How would this committee justify passing a scheme that so blatantly fails its own standard for affordable housing?

At 14 storeys high, the large blocks of this development would tower above the Town Hall in which we are sitting tonight. They are twice as high as in the original planning brief for this site and exceed the council's own 20 metre limit for conservation areas . We saw on the screen tonight the dramatic visual impact from Bond St and the way that the cylindrical block G jars against Christ Church.

We also saw on Saturday's site visit when we walked along Gordon Road how all views of the Town Hall from the north would be lost for all time, to be replaced by views of bland modern blocks. The Town Hall spire would never again be visible from Haven Green. How would this committee justify granting a scheme that is rejected by CABE and English Heritage because it is so out of keeping with the surrounding architecture of the Town Hall and Christ Church and would so dominate it?

Turning to the impacts of the scheme...

The scheme would add more cars and parking to local streets without a coherent traffic plan for the area as a whole. Longfield Avenue will simply not cope with all the additional traffic required for residents, shoppers and to service the shops on this site. The suggestion in the report that traffic light timings could be improved on the Uxbridge Road is laughable - does anyone really believe there is untapped capacity on the Uxbridge Road that a rephasing of the lights would unlock, and most significantly there has been no wider study of the effects on the town centre as a whole.

Finally, the scheme provides essentially no facilities for the local community.

This is not a speculative application from a developer. It should be a proposal to improve Ealing as a place for people to live in.

So my final question for you is whether an application on council land should be granted if it offers no real benefit for the local community?

If you cannot justify this application against the three questions I have posed, I urge you to reject this application so that a better scheme can come forward for our town centre to house our residents, preserve our Town Centre and improve Ealing as a place to live.