West Ealing Neighbours Blog

1.Chair’s report

David Highton, chair, gave a brief report on the past year. He started by saying that when WEN started in 2006 there was very little time spent on considering major developments. In the first years, WEN got involved in activities such as preserving the heritage lampposts, improving pedestrian safety at the Lido Junction and helping establish the arts centre OPEN Ealing. Now, most of our time is spent on major developments – many of which are on tonight’s agenda.

There are two other recent activities he wanted to highlight. Firstly, the efforts made to tackle anti-social behaviour within the O’Grady Court sheltered flats (above the library) which has spilt over on to Melbourne Avenue. A number of agencies were involved and the result is that Peabody Housing which manages the flats has employed security guards to prevent non-residents getting in to the building. Secondly, the library was facing possible closure as it was proving too much for OPEN Ealing to run alongside their arts centres. Neither the Council nor OPEN wants to close the library but a way forward needs to be found. In response to this, WEN helped bring together some dozen interested groups and residents. They met on Monday (21^st October) and out of this came a group willing to look at the vision and appropriate governance for the library. This is an encouraging first step towards finding a solution to keeping the library open and enabling it to be at the heart of our local community.

WEN has also been active in supporting efforts to save Victoria Hall, secure the future of Warren Farm and play a part in  Save Ealing’s Centre’s work. Finally, WEN has an active book club and an Abundance project selling its own apple juice through a local deli.

Accounts

Thanks to our treasurer, Andrew Cazalet, for producing the accounts. As at the end of December 2023 WEN has £1324 in the bank. With the cost of this meeting and the one held in February there will be very little left in the bank. Contributions towards the cost of this meeting would be very gratefully received.

Election of committee members

David Highton said the three existing post holders of Chair (David Highton), Vice Chair (Eric Leach) and treasurer (Andrew Cazalet) were silling to stand again. Ian Potts proposed the three and Gillian Brown seconded this.

New committee members

Finally, David Highton thanked all the current members of the committee for their hard work over the past year. He stressed the importance to WEN’s future of new people joining the committee to bring new ideas, enthusiasm and energy.

2. Public Meeting

This part of the meeting was chaired by Eric Leach.

Leeland Terrace

This a part completed development in Maitland Yard/Dean Gardens car park off Leeland Terrace. The builder Henry went bust some time ago. Cllr Manro said the Council is still looking for a builder to take over. In response to a question, he said there are no plans to demolish and start again. No time scale  yet for the works to re-start.

 Green Man Lane Estate

Phase 4 will be 396 homes and is still being reviews by the GLA. After the first contractor went bust the new contractor building the town houses on Felix Road is nearing completion with the first residents having moved in.

Gurnell

Plans include 295 homes in five towers. The new planning application should be submitted by the Council early next year. Cllr Polly Knewstub spoke about the plans and was confident that a top quality project, including a new swimming pool, would be delivered. She also talked about the different ways funds could be raised to cover the costs.

Kwik Fit

This development is for shared living ( a bit like student accommodation) for people of all ages. It will be 134 co-living studio flats in towers up to 9 storeys. Eric Leach raised questions about how this would work in practice and mentioned a similar development where this idea had not worked and had been dropped.

Cllr Manro said the developers for this site are ones which do get on with the work so likely to start soon.

Faulty Towers

This refers to the three tower blocks being built within close proximity of each other – Waitrose, Manor Road and the Majestic Wine site. The councillors didn’t comment on the likely traffic chaos caused by the three simultaneous developments in Manor Road (tower next to station), Hastings Road (Tide Towers) and Alexandria Road for Waitrose.

Tide Tower

This is the old Majestic Wine Warehouse site. Plans are for 448 student bedsits in four towers up to 13 storeys high. The demolition phase has been completed and building work has begun.

Waitrose

The planning application is for 428 homes in six towers – the tallest approaching the height of Big Ben.

The planning application for this development was not determined by the Council within the required timeframe. As a result, John Lewis Partnership has taken it to the Planning Inspectorate to rule for a decision. The Council has decided not to contest this. However, Save The Towers is contesting it and is seeking funds to help it cover its costs.

In response to some strong views on the Council’s decision not to contest this , Cllr Manro explained that the Council required a minimum of 30% affordable homes on this site. The plans had only 20%. The council believe it was negotiating in good faith with John Lewis only ‘to have the rug pulled from beneath it’ by John Lewis. He went on to say that the cost of contesting this application could run in to some £100,000s and this was considered to be too much and not a good use of the Council’s limited resources. He also added that another John Lewis development had proposed just 10% affordable housing and this had been accepted by the local borough, so this would not have helped Ealing Council’s case.

Cllr Manro then made a wider point about how difficult it is for the Council to meet its own targets for affordable housing. They are only managing to reach half their annual target of 2,000 affordable homes a year.  The period of austerity and inflation had pushed a number of builders in to bankruptcy and this had slowed down building these homes. In addition, the costs to housing associations of both the fire remediation work post-Grenfell and  repairing existing stock because of mould and damp mean that housing associations have much less money for new builds.

Stop The Towers

Justine Sulliivan, co-chair of Stop The Towers, outlined why they were willing to represent Ealing residents in opposing John Lewis’s plans for the Waitrose site. She was strongly of the view that if this case was lost then the whole borough would feel the impact of these massive style developments and would be powerless to stop them. The Government Inquiry starts on 19^th November. Save The Towers needs financial help to pay its lawyers. Visit their website https://stopthetowers.info to find out how you can help.

Commuter Congestion

Eric Leach commented that the rush hour trains of the Elizabeth Line are already crowded by the time they reach West Ealing. The pressure will only increase with the 7,000 or so new homes being built in Southall on the old gas works site along with the towers by West Ealing station.  He put in a plea for the Council to lobby for more trains on this western branch of the Elizabeth Line.

Old Woolworths site

Still a pile of rubble with no sign of action. Cllr Manro believed this site is still for sale and so no timescale when this site will be developed.

Manor Road Towers

144 flats in two towers – 12 and 18 storeys high. Work is back underway after the initial building contractor went bust.

St James Place

144 flats with towers up to 16 storeys. This is the same developer as for the Kwik Fit site so work should start fairly soon.

Electricity and Water Supply

There were some strong views on the potential problems and likelihood of a shortage of these two utilities. A question from the audience highlighted the impact of data centres on electricity supply (one data centre requires on average enough electricity to supply 50,000 homes). What was the Council doing to secure adequate supplies of both water and electricity? Cllr Manro’s argument was that building would continue and the supplies would have to be provided. The Council could not stop trying to build the homes required for the borough because of this.

Lammas Park

A lot of concern as to just what is happening with the drainage works, the lack of information on the scale of the works and the worries about children’s safety near the newly created ponds. Cllr Gareth Shaw explained that the project was being undertaken with the Environment Agency and was about capturing and slowly releasing excess water from the surrounding area. Work has stopped as a new planning application is required to complete the works. Once complete the works will be connected to the Thames Water system. In terms of safety, Cllr Shaw explained that the planting around the edges of the ponds would act as a deterrent to children to stop them getting too close to the water. There were concerns expressed about loss of green space and a lack of consultation.  

David Highton for the WEN committee

29^th October 2024

30th July 2024 Uxbridge Road near junction with Northfield Avenue

West Ealing Neighbours (WEN) recently asked Ealing Council to prosecute vehicle owners who park illegally on Broadway and Uxbridge Road in central West Ealing. For months, and probably years, cars have been parked illegally on Broadway – sometimes for many hours. On 3 June 2024 WEN delivered timed photographs of cars illegally parked to Ealing Council Parking Services. Ealing Council’s response was very unhelpful. It continues to consistently fail to enforce these car parking regulations.

The illegal car parking blocks the passage of buses, cyclists and private vehicle drivers. This causes swerving to avoid the cars, delays in vehicular transport and increased pollution with idling engines.

On February 15, 2024 WEN ran a public meeting at the Drayton Court Hotel, West Ealing attended by 150 residents. At the meeting local Councillors present were strongly urged to ensure Council Officers made increased efforts to clear Broadway of illegally parked cars. Almost six months later the car parking problem has not been dealt with.

‘We can’t have one law for a few people and a different law for everyone else’ said Kevin Raftery of WEN. ‘I’ve never seen the cycle lane clear during business hours’, he added.

The Evidence is below:

West Ealing Neighbours (WEN) Formed in 2005 the WEN residents’ group works together to make West Ealing a better place for residents, businesses and visitors. 

For more information contact Eric Leach on 07585 490857 and at leachericalan@gmail.com 

Ealing Council, like all other councils, has to produce a local plan. The plan lays out how the Council would like to see the borough developing over the next 15 years. This plan is now at the very last stage before it goes for approval, or not, by a government inspector.

West Ealing Neighbours, along with many other local residents groups and umbrella organisations in the borough, is working on its response to the plan. Putting together a response is quite a daubnting task. The plan itself is over 500 pages long plus supporting information on top.

The deadline to respond is 6pm on 10th April. As we complete our response we will put our documents up on our website for you to read. You are welcome to take any elements of our responses to use in your own. The first three of these documents are at the bottom of this page. They cover planned tall builsings in central West Ealing, no plans for a publically accessible police station and serious questions over the supply of electricity to the planned developments.

As a starting point, here is the link to the local plan on the Council’s website.

There is also an interesting article on the Ealing Today website about Friends of the Earth’s view that needing to build 43,000 new homes to accommodate the planned growth in population mean that it is impossible for the Council to meet its target Net Zero target.

Chapter 4 is the most relevant section of the plan to look at as it includes the information about the development plans for the 43,000 new homes across the ‘seven towns’ of Ealing borough. West Ealing is included in the Ealing Town Plan and Development Sites. Below are some initial thoughts and comments on this section:

Chapter 4 general points

20-minute neighbourhoods, to the detriment of “place making”

4.2.17 says “Across Ealing town its smaller centres and local parades (i.e. Northfields, The Avenue and Pitshanger Lane) are not meeting their full potential. These smaller centres are often comprised of single storey buildings that provide opportunity for mix-use intensification of retail, commercial, and residential uses that would support Ealing’s priority to reimagine local centres as a network of 20-minute neighbourhoods.”

They seem to assume that single-storey buildings are incompatible with 20-minute neighbourhoods. In fact most of us can easily get to almost everything we need on a typical day with less than ten minutes of walking – and so can most other West Ealing residents. We don’t need taller buildings in order to have a 20-minute neighbourhood.

Many key businesses on Northfield Avenue have a second storey above them providing income that makes the property sustainable. These two-storey buildings are part of, or harmonise with, the Victorian feel which makes this area so attractive that the council proposes declaring it a Conservation Area.

Thus why do we have “new community infrastructure that would encourage these areas to act as social hubs”. They are social hubs already, and partly because of their low-rise charm.

In 4.2.49 (page 167) there are sweet words about “low rise premises in South Ealing and Northfields centres which offer a particular opportunity for sensitive intensification above existing commercial premises”. But what is their idea of “low rise”?

Electricity supply

4.2.29 includes Table E1 which predicts improvements to the electricity supply at a date “TBC”. This doesn’t give much confidence about the proposed near-term intensification of housing and high-tech businesses. It conflicts with 4.2.56 which says “infrastructure is expected to be delivered in earlier phases of development”.

Police station

Table E1 also says the Police station will be refurbished at a date “TBC”. Having said that central Ealing is the thriving hub of the borough, the plan seems not to care that this thriving hub has no police station that anyone can use.

West Ealing station area

Policy E2 on page 160 makes it clear that growth around West Ealing station is to be “optimised” to bring more people into the borough. Why should this be the aim, since they’re already saying we have too many people looking for housing here?

Ealing Character Study

4.2.56 says that all development proposals “must respond to relevant contextual design guidance provided in Part 2 of the Ealing Character Study”. Part 2 can be found here:

https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/17176/part_2_-_typologies_and_scope_for_growth.pdf

It has 118 pages. One interesting statement, on page 14, says “retained historic fabric [of buildings] provides a human scale and fine grain of unit size”. This was written specifically about town centres like Ealing and West Ealing. So this is useful for seeking to avoid the destruction of historic building scales.

Further information for our future use: on page 17 regarding neighbourhood centres, “create a consistent datum and roofline in plots where buildings are lower, such as Northfields single storey buildings”. In other words, don’t put tall buildings there.

On page 49 it says “height should not be a precursor for the location of other tall buildings; careful consideration of clusters, the sensitivity of context and setting needs to be considered”. In other words, the presence of one skyscraper doesn’t justify another.

Overall, the recommendations of this study form a recipe for sensitive development, and we may want to refer to it when proposals are put forward.

Housing Design Guidance

4.2.56 says that “development proposals must comply with latest design guidance provided by … the council’s Housing Design Guidance” which can be found here:

https://www.ealing.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/17171/housing_design_guidance_november_2022.pdf

This includes design guidance for tall buildings. It does say (page 10) that the surrounding area and heritage must be considered:

Consider the local architecture and building typologies and the local pattern of built form. How can new development respond to this in terms of building line, scale and massing?

Submision 1 – Sainsbury’s site and other tall buildings planned for central West Ealing

3. To which part of the Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph: Chapter 4, pages 192-193

Policy: E2 Ealing Metropolitan Town Centre, paragraph G.

Policies Map: Site 11EA (Sainsbury’s and Library, West Ealing)

4. Do you consider the Local Plan is: (please tick)

4.(1) Legally compliant   

4.(2) Sound   NO

5. Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate. Please be as precise as possible.

Chapter 4 says on page 192 “design analysis indicates a maximum height of 16 storeys”. But I see no design analysis in the Local Plan or its supporting documents which would support that assertion. On the contrary, the “Tall buildings strategy, main report” gives guidance for West Ealing overall on page 28, with prospective tall building heights being 7-13 storeys.

The “Tall buildings strategy appendix – Guidance for study sites” includes on page 49 a map more specific to this site’s area, clearly showing that no building taller than 13 storeys is desirable.

In addition, a maximum height of 13 storeys for this site was proposed at the Regulation 18 stage of consultation. I have found no explanation for the increase between stages 18 and 19.

If the council’s aim was to add a certain number of new homes in the area, the new increase to this site’s target height was not necessary, because sites 12EA and 14EA will inevitably produce significantly more homes than envisioned for them in the Local Plan. (See further Part B representations below.) The sum of new homes across sites 11EA, 12EA and 14EA will be enough to meet the council’s aims even when the 11EA target is reduced back to 13 storeys where it stood at Regulation 18.

If I may refer again to the “Tall buildings strategy, main report”, it says on page 6: Examples of inappropriately tall buildings include developments that … exceed the upper limit of the guidance set out for an appropriate location for tall buildings. The proposed 16-storey replacement for West Ealing Sainsbury’s would thus be inappropriately tall, by the council’s own definition.

NPPF paragraph 31 says the preparation and review of all policies should be underpinned by relevant and up-to-date evidence. This should be adequate and proportionate, focused tightly on supporting and justifying the policies concerned.

Ealing’s Local Plan does not conform to the NPPF, because no relevant evidence has been shown for increasing the height of site 11EA beyond 13 storeys.

6.  Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan legally compliant and sound, in respect of any legal compliance or soundness matters you have identified at 5 above. 

Chapter 4, pages 192-193 should be changed to set a maximum height of 13 storeys. Any other references to the height of 11EA should be changed accordingly.

I would also suggest that the Design Principles on page 193 state that car parking will be required for the supermarket and community facilities.

7. If your representation is seeking a modification to the plan, do you consider it necessary to participate in examination hearing session(s)?

No, I do not wish to participate in hearing session(s)

X

Yes, I wish to participate in hearing session(s)

8.  If you wish to participate in the hearing session(s), please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

Very few people feel that they have understood the 516-page Local Plan and all its related documents. The Council has in effect stifled objections by structuring the plan in this unnecessarily cumbersome way. Therefore those few of us who have spent hours reading the plan must be prepared to speak on behalf of our neighbours.

Part B (Please use a separate sheet for each representation).

3. To which part of the Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph: Chapter 4, pages 194-195

Policy:  E2 Ealing Metropolitan Town Centre, paragraph G.

Policies Map: Site 12EA (Chignell Place, West Ealing)

4. Do you consider the Local Plan is: (please tick)

4.(1) Legally compliant

4.(2) Sound   NO

5. Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate. Please be as precise as possible.

The plan for site 12EA is not deliverable, since Ealing Council has already approved application 215125FUL for an 8-storey development on this site.

The draft Local Plan calls for a maximum of 4 storeys, and specifically states that the site “is not in principle suitable for a tall building”. But these words and these aims have no meaning, following the council’s approval of the 8-storey development.

6.  Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan legally compliant and sound, in respect of any legal compliance or soundness matters you have identified at 5 above. 

The appearance of site 12EA in the Local Plan is misleading, because the council has already given away control, and it is now undeliverable. I leave it to the Inspector to decide whether there is sufficient merit to keep it in the Local Plan at all.

7. If your representation is seeking a modification to the plan, do you consider it necessary to participate in examination hearing session(s)?

No, I do not wish to participate in hearing session(s)

X

Yes, I wish to participate in hearing session(s)

8.  If you wish to participate in the hearing session(s), please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

Very few people feel that they have understood the 516-page Local Plan and all its related documents. The Council has in effect stifled objections by structuring the plan in this unnecessarily cumbersome way. Therefore those few of us who have spent hours reading the plan must be prepared to speak on behalf of our neighbours.

Part B (Please use a separate sheet for each representation).

3. To which part of the Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph: Chapter 4, pages 198-199

Policy:  E2 Ealing Metropolitan Town Centre, paragraph G.

Policies Map: Site 14EA (Western Gateway, West Ealing)

4. Do you consider the Local Plan is: (please tick)

4.(1) Legally compliant

4.(2) Sound   NO

5. Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate. Please be as precise as possible.

The plan for site 14EA is not deliverable, since Ealing Council has already approved application 225080FUL for a 9-storey development on this site.

The draft Local Plan calls for a maximum of 6 storeys. But this has no meaning, following the council’s approval of the 9-storey development.

It seems likely that the council will also approve application 235015FUL making the 9-storey building wider.

6.  Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan legally compliant and sound, in respect of any legal compliance or soundness matters you have identified at 5 above. 

The appearance of site 14EA in the Local Plan is misleading, because the council has already given away control, and it is now undeliverable. I leave it to the Inspector to decide whether there is sufficient merit to keep it in the Local Plan at all.

Submission 2 – lack of infrastructure to support planned new homes including no new police station open to the public

3. To which part of the Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph: Chapter 4, pages 154-155, 159, 169, IDP Part Two section 3.9

Policy: E1 Ealing Spatial Strategy, paragraph P

Policies Map: Site 06EA (49-69 Uxbridge Road, pages 182-183 of Chapter 4)

4. Do you consider the Local Plan is: (please tick)

4.(1) Legally compliant   

4.(2) Sound   NO

5. Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate. Please be as precise as possible.

The Local Plan is not consistent with national policy.

I quote from the NPPF:

(paragraph 8a) an overarching economic objective is coordinating the provision of infrastructure

(paragraph 11a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to … align growth and infrastructure

(paragraph 86c)  planning policies should seek to address potential barriers to investment, such as inadequate infrastructure

An item of infrastructure that every large community needs is a police station where the public can go to seek help or, for example, to leave goods which appear to have been stolen. Central/West Ealing, a town of 91,149 people, has been without such a police station for several years.

The Local Plan does not address this in a timely way. In Chapter 4 page 159, Table E1, the refurbishment of Ealing Police Station has a target date “TBC”. The table at the end of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Part Two also says “TBC”. Chapter 4 site selection 06EA sets a target for completion of 2038.

This is not soon enough. New housing developments adding tens of thousands more people should not go forward until there is water, electricity, transport … and a fully functional police station.

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Part Two: Infrastructure Delivery Schedule, page 20 does not give one further hope: In terms of planned service provision, the Metropolitan Police Service identified the ‘Strongest Ever Neighbourhood Policing’ initiative, which would see investment by the Metropolitan Police in more local police officers and police community support officers (PCSOs) in the neighbourhood. There is nothing concrete in this statement. It is not a plan nor a schedule. It’s what is commonly called “waffle”.

6.  Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan legally compliant and sound, in respect of any legal compliance or soundness matters you have identified at 5 above. 

The 06EA site plan on pages 182-183 should be changed to specify a timeframe for delivery within 5 years. Corresponding changes should be made to Table E1 on page 159 and to the table at the end of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Part Two. The 06EA site plan should make it clear that the new police station will have a public-facing desk, open all hours every day.

The Inspector may wish to review other site allocations to ensure that housing builds do not outrace infrastructure preparations.

7. If your representation is seeking a modification to the plan, do you consider it necessary to participate in examination hearing session(s)?

No, I do not wish to participate in hearing session(s)

X

Yes, I wish to participate in hearing session(s)

8.  If you wish to participate in the hearing session(s), please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

Very few people feel that they have understood the 516-page Local Plan and all its related documents. The Council has in effect stifled objections by structuring the plan in this unnecessarily cumbersome way. Therefore those few of us who have spent hours reading the plan must be prepared to speak on behalf of our neighbours.

Submission 3 – significant questions over electricity newtwork capacity for planned new homes

3. To which part of the Local Plan does this representation relate?

Paragraph: Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Part Two: Infrastructure Delivery Schedule

Policy: E1 Ealing Spatial Strategy, paragraph P

Policies Map:

4. Do you consider the Local Plan is: (please tick)

4.(1) Legally compliant   

4.(2) Sound   NO

5. Please give details of why you consider the Local Plan is not legally compliant or is unsound or fails to comply with the duty to co-operate. Please be as precise as possible.

The Local Plan is not consistent with national policy.

I quote from the NPPF:

(paragraph 8a) an overarching economic objective is coordinating the provision of infrastructure

(paragraph 11a) all plans should promote a sustainable pattern of development that seeks to … align growth and infrastructure

(paragraph 86c)  planning policies should seek to address potential barriers to investment, such as inadequate infrastructure

The electricity supply in the West Ealing area is already overburdened. There have been power cuts – such as that of 19 January 2024 caused by a major fire at the ageing Dean Gardens substation in early 2024. This substation is just one of many ageing substations that need replacing.

The Local Plan does not address what is already a critical issue. Please consult the table at the end of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Part Two: Infrastructure Delivery Schedule. Near the beginning of this table are five “Electricity Supply” projects. All five are marked “Critical”. Four of them have a delivery period of “TBC”, including both of the projects earmarked for Ealing.

With the current situation liable to cause further outages and fires, and the impending creation of hundreds of new homes, it is simply not good planning to leave electricity supply projects for a date TBC. This is not a plan that conforms to the NPPF.

6.  Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Local Plan legally compliant and sound, in respect of any legal compliance or soundness matters you have identified at 5 above. 

Establish target dates in the immediate future for all Electricity Supply projects in the IDP final table. Make corresponding changes to Chapter 4, Ealing Town Plan, Table E1, page 159.

Furthermore, the plan should include a statement, agreed between the council and the relevant electricity providers, guaranteeing that sufficient electrical supply will be available for all site allocations in the Ealing Town Plan.

7. If your representation is seeking a modification to the plan, do you consider it necessary to participate in examination hearing session(s)?

No, I do not wish to participate in hearing session(s)

X

Yes, I wish to participate in hearing session(s)

8.  If you wish to participate in the hearing session(s), please outline why you consider this to be necessary:

Very few people feel that they have understood the 516-page Local Plan and all its related documents. The Council has in effect stifled objections by structuring the plan in this unnecessarily cumbersome way. Therefore those few of us who have spent hours reading the plan must be prepared to speak on behalf of our neighbours.

Draft response from West Ealing Neighbours to Live West Ealing proposals.

The deadline for comments is 31st March 2024 and the survey can be found here

General points:

There are no reasons given in the proposals as to why £8.6 million is to be spent on these ‘designs’. There are no explicit references to problems which need to be solved. What is more, no evidence is presented to support these changes to be made to deal with ‘unknown’ problems’.  Finally, there is no evidence presented as to how these design changes will perform both quantitatively and qualitatively.

These plans will potentially create new areas for anti- social behaviour as detailed below. How do the police fit in with this plan in terms of dealing with anti-social behaviour?

With the creation of new seating, green spaces and play spaces, what are the long-term maintenance plans for the upkeep of these? How will the immediately local community be encouraged to get involved to ‘oversee/supervise’ these new spaces?

Singapore Road and Witham Road are basically service roads and they, and the nearby areas, are frequently very badly littered despite the efforts of the volunteer litter picking group LAGER Can. If this littering isn’t tackled these areas will stay deeply unattractive and no amount of attempts to enliven them with seats and greenery will encourage anyone to stop and enjoy the new spaces. How can the buildings along these roads have more active frontages to deter flytipping, littering and anti-social behaviour?

What analysis has been undertaken to assess the impact of the loss of car parking spaces, e.g. Leeland Road and Witham Road car park, on local shops and businesses?

1.Broadway

It makes sense to align road crossings with main north-south streets to improve and speed up access for pedestrians

WEN supports plan to stop parking and loading on Broadway as long as this can be enforced and there really is access for deliveries on parallel roads such as Leeland Terrace, Singapore and Witham Road.

2. Lido Junction

Will pedestrians still be able to cross in all directions on the red-light phase?

3. Dean Gardens

The widened shared cycle and pedestrian paths should be segregated with markings to keep the two groups separate and avoid possible collisions. Some cyclists travel fast, too fast, along the existing route.

With the proposed one way traffic on Leeland Terrace – with eastbound vehicles and westbound cycles – will cyclists from the west use the eastbound vehicle route to enter Dean Gardens and on across to Mattock Lane? If so, is this desirable?  Westbound cyclists can simply ride through Dean Gardens and continue westbound along the cycle route.

Good that area taken by new and/or wider cycle paths to be compensated for by path removed from south-west corner.

No commitment to major improvements to the lighting in the park.

4. Green Man Passage

Will the proposed new planting and greenery need maintenance? If so, who will do this as it’s unlikely the Council will do much maintenance. What efforts will be made to encourage nearby business and residents to ‘look after’ the area?  Green Man Passage can get very badly littered. What plans are there to keep the area clean and tidy?

Improved lighting is essential along the full length of Green Man Passage.

What is happening to the seemingly derelict piece of land next to the Serbian Church? This has been empty for a good few years since the church’s plans for it were rejected.

5. Witham Road Car Park

As above, what plans are there to maintain the public seating area so it does not attract anti-social behaviour? Again, this area can get very badly littered, so how will this be tackled?

This is a well-used car park. A loss of five spaces for yet more cycle stands is not ideal. Nor is the loss of some parking on Witham Road. These spaces are vital for the survival of local businesses.

6. Jacob’s Ladder

 Again, how will the play features/area be maintained? This area has great potential for anti-social behaviour. How will this be managed?

What has happened to the original plans for a pedestrian route from Jacob’s Ladder, through the Green Man Lane Estate, to Singapore Road? This should be a key pedestrian route but it is currently blocked and no sign of it being opened up.

Funds would be better spent improving the fabric of Jacob’s Ladder and the route to the north where there is poor visibility between the bridge and the road.

7. Manor Road

Plans seem sensible

8. Leeland Road

Priority here must be ensuring pitches for the weekly market. Allied to this, what are the plans to ensure the market traders will have access to enough parking spaces on Saturday mornings? They have lost parking in Maitland Yard and no immediate prospect of that returning. Will they be able to continue parking in the library car park? Will adequate power supply points be made available for stall holders?

Yet more parking spaces lost to the detriment of local businesses and local residents.

9. Green Man passage (south of Witham Road)

This alleyway can get badly littered, not least by charity shop donations being there for the Cancer research shop. Improved lighting is essential.

10. Singapore Road

Is this cycle route one that cycling organisations have called for?  Is there any evidence Singapore Road is used as a ‘rat-run’ – it seems unlikely?  It’s not a very convenient short cut to avoid the Broadway. The loss of 24 parking spaces looks likely to be a major problem, not least for the West London Islamic Centre for Friday lunchtime prayers.

11. Leeland Terrace

Makes more sense as a safer cycle rote than Singapore Road as it links to route through Deans Gardens and on to Mattock Lane. Even so, what evidence is there that it is used as a short cut to avoid the Broadway.

Funnelling all  Sainsbury’s traffic along Leeland Terrace from the junction with Coldershaw Road is a questionable move as it is likely to cause jams at the junction of Leeland Terrace and the Broadway with traffic wanting to turn right in to he Broadway. Much local traffic from the streets to the south wanting to go west will also end up in this queue or start using alternative routes via side streets to reach Coldershaw Road or Boston Road to avoid likely queue on Leeland Terrace.

12. St James Avenue

Again, how will the proposed seating and play area be maintained?  This plan could be widened if an agreement is reached with the church authorities to use its green spaces in front of and to the side of the church.

13. Melbourne Avenue

One major problem for Melbourne Avenue is the poor drainage. The narrow gulley is never cleaned so quickly blocks up and the area is easily flooded when it rains.

Better lighting is essential as the area is dark late night.

This is an area plagued by anti-social behaviour almost all day long. It attracts street drinkers and drug dealing. The police know this but little ever happens to tackle this problem.

Once again, who will maintain the planters and seating? The planters are largely full of rubbish and do not often get cleaned by the street cleaners.

There is already public art in the form of a mural on Sainsbury’s front wall. I suspect most people aren’t aware of it.  Any new public art should be managed by OPEN Ealing  –  soon to be running the library. It would be more of an attraction for the area for the public art to change of a regular basis – could tie up with SET in St James Ave?

14. Walsingham Road, Bedford Road and Brownlow Road

Again, seating in Bedford Road will need maintaining.

David Highton

March 25th 2024

Henry Construction which won £40m contract from Ealing Council to build over 130 homes has gone in to liquidation. Henry were building the new homes on the Dean Gardens car park site and the 20-storey tower by West Ealing station amongst other local developments. The constructionenquirer.com website says ‘Insolvency experts took control of the London-based residential tower builder’ last week.

It seems hundreds of suppliers and sub-contractors are left out of pocket. The website says ‘One rival main contractor said: “Henry’s have been buying work for years and it all seems to have come to a head as soaring costs and labour caught up with them” ‘.

I imagine it will take a while to hear what the Council will do to re-start these building projects.