Categories
Ealing and Northfield

Reynard Mills plannning application

At the start of June developers put in an application to build a massive 315 new homes on the site of the old Reynard Mills industrial estate on Windmill Road. Although the site is in the Brentford ward of the London Borough of Hounslow the impact of the development will be keenly felt by the residents of Northfield.

The Northfield councillors have been extremely active on this case, led in this case by my colleague Mark Reen. See his excellent objection letter below. We have all lodged our own objections and Mark has ensured that Ealing residents were consulted on this Hounslow scheme. We have leafleted the area so that people are clear about what is being proposed.

The application will be considered on 30th August. The deadline for submission of objections has been extended until 26th July. To object simply follow this link.

Mr Smith,

I would like to register my objection to the proposed development.

Overdevelopment

Having consulted Table 3A.2 of the London Plan the development (the scheme having a PTAL rating of 2) should have approximately 150-250 habitable rooms per hectare and 35-65 units/hectare given the average of 3.75 habitable rooms per unit across the development.

According to my calculations the proposed development equates to a hr/h figure of 414 and 131 u/hectare- over double the London Plan Guidance and clear evidence of a scale and built form that is locally unacceptable – both in size and in context with the current residential layout.

This is clearly overdevelopment on a massive scale and it will ill serve Hounslow to approve it.

Parking Provision

From the Ealing side the underprovision of car parking relative to the allowable limits will spill out onto the roads in and around the development – these roads are all in Ealing – currrently uncontrolled and already congested by displacement parking from the CPZ on the Hounslow side of the border and the TVU. This development will have a further detrimental amenity impact on Ealings residents and also is in contravention of those aspects of the London Plan that suggest schemes should be considered with regard to their impact for parking across the whole neighbourhood.

Traffic

It is my view that the key local junctions for the residents of the proposed development – Windmill Rd/A4 and Little Ealing/Popes Lane/South Ealing Rd are already at capacity during peak hours. The effect of the additional car use from the development will impact Ealings residents by first encouraging rat-running along Darwin, Carlyle and Murray Rds onto the A4 and South Ealing Rd – further congesting an already clogged residential road network. This is a detrimental to the amenity and safety of the road network on the Ealing side of the border.

It is also inconsistent with London plan policies that says that developments should seek to minimise car trip length.

I note that although the scheme is entirely in Hounslow the traffic amenity effects will almost all entirely be in Ealing – in a neighbourhood which is already under great stress at peak periods.

Residential Amenity

Ealings UDP would suggest that for the development over 2000sq metres of amenity space should be povided (UDP guidance 75sqm per 5 flats). The development indicates that there will be a small communal garden. This is unnaceptable development and will mean that the nearest parks (Boston Manor in Hounslow and Blondin in Ealing) both over 6/800m away on foot would be the only open space available to residents in an area not well served.

The development should therefore contain much more communal space/child play space for it to be acceptable development the development is in contravention of London Plan Policy 3D.13

Overall

The development is overbearing, unneighbourly in size and form and is correspondingly out of character with the largely edwardian/victorian character of the local streetscene.

It will contribute to parking spill over into Ealing, rat running along Ealing residential streets and strain an already over-parked local road network.

The scheme makes no allowance for the increase in child population, no provision for amenity space for residents with regards to communal space and will dominate its surroundings to an unacceptable extent. The lack of social infrastructure alone is reason for refusal.

I ask you to refuse the application as inconsitent with London Plan policy 3A.2 as this does not constitute sustainable development.

Regards,

Cllr Mark Reen
Shadow Portfolio Holder – Finance & Performance
Representing Northfield ward

6 replies on “Reynard Mills plannning application”

Agree with you here.

West Ealing Neighbours has submitted a detailed objection also.

Fascinating isn’t it that it’s unlikely that an Ealing Councillor would submit such an objection to an Ealing Planning Application as they would claim they were ‘conflicted’. However this is not the case with a Planning Application in a neighbouring local authority (in this case Hounslow).

Eric,

Let the bells ring out!

Local councillors do often object to planning applications in their boroughs but not if they are on the planning committee itself. You would not have a juryman on a jury if he/she opined on the guilt of the accused before or during the process. Same thing with planning councillors.

Bells ..yes ..ding dong.

WEN also emailed three Brentford Councillors and within three days we had content bearing replies from two of them.

We emailed Ealing Broadway Councillors about Dickens Yard and Arcadia in 2008/9 and we still await replies to those emails. Certainly one of them was not ‘conflicted’ in any way.

Whilst I think the scale of this development is too large I don’t see how London’s chronic housing shortage can be tackled unless new homes are built?

I think the impact of having an overly relaxed attitude to immigration is starting to be felt – even in leafy Northfields. As pointed out any kids in that development will need school places also. 600/800m isn’t that far to walk to a park though.

I think the parking difficulties could be alleviated by giving residents of neighbouring streets to controlled zones a permit to park within the zones. Also the hours need to be reconsidered. I went to Kew last weekend to visit a guitar shop and appreciated their more logical restrictions – just one hour between 9 and 10am Mon to Friday. This allowed me to collect my guitar and have a bite to eat without having to stress. Lovely.

Gaz,

I think that most people will be relaxed with housing on this site. The density proposed though was way too high. There is no good reason for the density on this site a good way from public transport to be any higher than the rest of the neighbourhood which is already very dense even by London standards.

Comments are closed.