Category: Ealing and Northfield

As we all struggle to get around today here is an update from the Council Leader, Jason Stacey, on where we are at with grit:

I thought it might be helpful to let you know about the issue of grit, where the Council grits, etc during this cold spell.

The Council will grit all primary and secondary roads – a primary road would be for example the Uxbridge Road or Mandeville Road and a secondary road something like Greenford Avenue or Castlebar Hill. The primary and secondary roads equate to a network of around 250 kms of road. It is not unusual for gritters to need to cover this distance twice during a night – especially when there has been snowfall. To put this into some sort of context – if our gritters are required to do two rounds during a night this comes to 500 kms of road being gritted – about the same distance from the Town Hall to the Eiffel Tower in Paris!

In addition to the gritting process, footpaths in major footfall areas will be gritted – so for example all of our town centres, areas around major transport hubs, shopping parades, etc. To achieve this we effectively suspend ‘zone 1’ cleansing operations and these crews are directed on to footpath gritting. Yesterday there were 29 teams out in the borough.

Our priority for the time being has to be to work on these priority areas. As you will be aware, this is not a simple do it once job and then it is done, but rather we have to keep continually doing them to ensure the priority areas keep clear.

In terms of grit levels, the Council currently has around 2,000 tonnes of the stuff. The Council has actually been gritting pretty regularly since before Christmas when stocks were at 3,000 tonnes and each gritting round uses around 100 tonnes. We therefore consider our levels at present to be pretty sound though it is quite high compared to many other London boroughs.

This morning I went to the Conservatives’ NHS draft manifesto launch event. It felt very like the Boris events in the run up to the 2008 London elections. It was very well done and the Tory team came across well.

Having been distracted with looking after baby and travelling up to town this morning I had missed the Chancellor’s black hole document.

The Chancellor’s document has been an effective spoiling tactic although it demonstrates some chutzpah after Brown’s expanding public expenditure claim on the Andrew Marr show on Sunday. It seems that it has somewhat put the Tories on the back foot having to defend themselves, although Osborne has been quick to rebut the Labour claims.

It seems to me that the Tories are pursuing a strategy whilst Labour have had some luck with a tactic. It is always a mistake to talk about what your opponents are doing. The Tory message is not as clear or as simple as some would like but at least they are devoting their energies to their own agenda. Labour isn’t.

This was one reason this morning’s event felt like a Boris one – Livingstone made the same mistake. Boris was sunny and people liked him whilst Livingstone spent his time talking about Boris. Another reason was that I sat next to a new party member – an older Welsh bloke – an experience I had more than once attending Boris events. I am not sure that Darling was talking to many new members this morning. Boris’s step-by-step roll out of his manifesto was an impressive feature of his campaign which also seems to be being repeated now.

The big local news today is that the London Mayor, Boris Johnson, has called in the Southall gasworks development. Under new powers he is able to overturn local planning decisions which have a wider impact. He has done this once already this year at the Columbus Tower in Canary Wharf.

In many ways this is a very exciting project. It puts 3,750 homes on derelict land right on top of Southall station which will become a Crossrail station. Obviously people worry that an already busy area will become way too crowded.

You can see the Mayor’s press release here and coverage in Uxbridge Gazette here.

Local MP Virendra Sharma will be hopping mad. Here’s what he had to say about Ealing planning committee’s decision to refuse.

This afternoon I recorded an interview with Sunrise radio on Ealing’s venture into sports sponsorship, called Team Ealing Ambassadors. This is a really exciting project to provide some much needed support to local Olympic hopefuls.

Having been involved in the sport of rowing at a level that was well down from the elite level I have a small idea of what it takes to be an elite athlete. Apart from all of the time and dedication layered onto innate talent it also takes a lot of cash: kit, physios, diet supplements, travel to events, travel to out of season testing, match fees, the list goes on. This programme will support a small number of elite athletes by giving them up to £10K each between now and the Olympics. Many of these people will be being supported by their parents and trying to train whilst holding down a job.

The criteria are pretty strict and the scheme is only targeted at the elite. No apologies for that.

The scheme will support athletes, within the London Borough of Ealing, who can answer “yes” to
the following criteria questions:

• Are you aged 12 upwards or are of an age, which allows you to compete at the London 2012 Games?
• Has your relevant National Governing Body of Sport at a national level identified you as a potential athlete who will compete for Great Britain in the London 2012 Games?
• Are you a current member of a national training squad or team at the date of the application?
• Do you live in the London Borough of Ealing?

The scheme is not a free ride. In return for the support the athletes will be required to undertake some ambassadorial duties to promote sport and celebrate the Borough’s sporting achievements.

For more details and an application form go to the press release and follow links here.

This is only a small scheme, offering £125K between now and the Olympics, but for a handful of elite athletes it will make all of the difference. Details in Cabinet report here.

I see that last week’s Ealing & Acton Gazette is carrying some comments from Ealing North MP Steven Pound on the sale of Eve.

The council argued it was never properly on display, although residents had been able to go and see it according to Ealing North MP Steve Pound. “The family silver has now been sold off,” said Mr Pound. “I would like to see a fair bit of the money go back to the people of Hanwell, who have lost a prize asset.”

Naturally I am appalled that such a cultured man should resort to the use of such an outdated cliche as “selling the family silver”. The phrase was allegedly made famous by Harold Macmillan in reference to Margaret Thatcher’s privatisations. Like many things said to have been said in politics Macmillian didn’t actually say this, see here.

My challenge to Steve is simple. If you would have kept it, where would you have displayed it (all 3.1 metres tall of it) and how would you have paid to display it?

Maybe our country would not be in the parlous state it is in of our Labour government had not had such a cavalier attitude to the husbanding of public resources.

The biggest story coming out of Tuesday’s council meeting was the Leader’s announcement, in a reply to a question, that next year’s council tax will not rise again next year, for the second year running.

This comes on top of the London Mayor’s announcement this time last week of his draft budget which re-confirmed that the GLA precept will be frozen for the second year running, see here.

By voting Conservative in Ealing in 2006 voters have won themselves two below inflation rises of 1.9% and two years of stand still. For people in modest homes the combination of Ealing’s cash back and this history of council tax restraint means that they have effectively had their local taxes frozen for four years.

Similarly, by voting Conservative in London in 2008 voters have won themselves two years of stand still.

Meanwhile last week’s Pre-Budget Report served to underline how badly the whole country needs to vote Conservative in 2010.

This picture, the Birth of Eve by Solomon J Solomon featured here on a Christie’s poster, is one of the Borough’s treasures and in many ways it is a shame we are selling it. It goes under the hammer today at 2.30pm at Christie’s.

It would be nice to think that we had a public building that could safely display it but we simply don’t. It is a huge picture; it is over 3 metres high and almost 1.5 metres wide. Given that you would probably want to hang it out of reach you need a 8-9 metre high room (so it doesn’t look cramped). It would need to be climate controlled and, realistically, guarded 24 hours a day. We simply don’t have a room like that in the Borough and if we did we would be looking at a bill of some £10Ks per annnum to keep the picture safe whilst on display.

I know that local MP Stephen Pound has called this decision “philistine”, this is one of his favourite words. Words are cheap though and he has not said where it could be displayed nor told us whether he wants us to sack some front line workers or put up council tax to pay the running costs of displaying this picture.

We found Eve in terrible peril when we came to power (leant against a radiator behind the scenes at Hanwell library – just another example of the neglect our administration inherited). I am sure the picture is better off in the hands of someone or some organisation that can look after it properly. The sale proceeds will be ring-fenced for cultural projects across the borough. I will publish an update when I hear the sale price.

I would have been interested to see Eve go under the hammer this afternoon but I am looking after a coughing, feverish child instead. I think she is on the mend but a trip on the Tube isn’t really on.

Update: Eve was sold for £600,000 just after 3pm today. Although the price did not go stratospheric it was pretty respectable. Bonhams valued it at £300-500K in 2007 before the credit crunch. I watched it online – bit noisy but it was easy to log in and see it all happen.

This Monday saw the final decision on Glenkerrin’s Arcadia development on Ealing Broadway. John Denham, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, came down against the scheme following the advice of the planning inspector David Richards. Quite what value Denham added between the date of Richards’ report, dated 6th October, and Denham’s announcement on 7th December is not clear.

For myself I am disappointed that a by no means perfect, but entirely reasonable scheme has been scotched. The perfect is too often the enemy of the good and Ealing may well regret this repudiation of its own future in the years to come.

Eric Leach of Save Ealing’s Centre is exultant on the WEN website, copied verbatim on Ealing Today. Typically Leach is wrong on his facts. He says:

It’s rumoured that Glenkerrin and Ealing Council’s costs incurred to fight and lose this inquiry reached £7 million.

Total nonsense. I could imagine that figure, or one like it, was Glenkerrin’s total fee costs for the whole design, engineering, planning and legal advice, etc. The Council will have had to spend some tens of thousands of Pounds in legal fees to represent itself at the planning inquiry. Anybody who complains about this needs to bear in mind that the Council would be liable for some significant costs if it took a misstep in such a planning battle.

Notably Leach and SEC are not linking to the actual planning inspector’s report – mainly because it is not the vindication that SEC would suggest. You can download it here from my blog here.

Leach’s main misrepresentation relates to the station. He says:

A good place to start would be SEC’s Vision for the centre. This Vision mandates the design and implementation of an integrated transport hub based around Ealing Broadway Station as a pre-cursor to any other spatial development in the centre.

On their site SEC repeat the trick:

For the Arcadia site, this means a scheme that takes fully into account the need for an integrated public transport interchange at Ealing Broadway station …

The planning inspector says:

I fully appreciate the desirability of adopting an integrated approach to development and transport planning, and national policy encourages that approach. Nevertheless I do not consider that it would be appropriate, or reasonable, to inhibit or delay a development of the appeal site which was desirable in other respects, provided the development itself would not prejudice the achievement of these objectives.

In other words this site does not have to carry the weight of solving all of Ealing’s transport problems. The kind of public transport interchange megaproject envisaged by SEC would run into tens if not hundreds of millions of Pounds. SEC cannot “mandate” this kind of sum.

The report’s conclusions on page 132 speak at greater length about the scheme’s positives than its negatives. The inspector says:

The evidence to the Inquiry demonstrated that the appeal proposal would deliver a number of substantial benefits, which would fulfil some important objectives of development plan policy. In particular it would maximise use of a sustainable brownfield site in a key Town Centre location, taking advantage of excellent existing and proposed public transport facilities available in Ealing, in accordance with Policy 3A.3 of the London Plan.

It would also contribute strongly to the Council’s regeneration objectives, by re-invigorating Ealing’s retail provision and reinforcing its status as a Metropolitan Centre. The retail and commercial units would frame attractive new pedestrian streets and spaces, which would substantially improve the permeability of the site, improve pedestrian links between Haven Green and the Broadway and repair the historic fracture created by the railway lines. Station Square, offering a much improved arrival space opposite Ealing Broadway station, and the new street framing the tower and spire of the Church of Christ the Saviour would be attractive new elements in the townscape. The widening of pavements on the main street frontages, and provision of new crossings would be of significant additional benefit to pedestrians.

The scheme would also deliver a significant volume of housing, again in a sustainable location, including a range of unit size and tenure, and a proportion of affordable housing, which has been independently assessed as the maximum the development can sustain and still remain viable. The signed S106 Agreement would deliver contributions to off-site provision of community and physical infrastructure which are made necessary by the development, and which I consider would be proportionate to the scale of the development and generally in accordance with the provisions of saved UDP policy 1.10.

Relatively few words are dedicated to the scheme’s shortcomings:

Notwithstanding these clear benefits, I consider that the bulk, massing and certain aspects of the design would be inappropriate in its surroundings, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Town Centre conservation area, and the setting of Haven Green conservation area, for the reasons set out in full in my consideration of the main issues. The massing of development facing Haven Green, and the elevations to Ealing Broadway are of particular concern. The height of the southern elevation of the scheme would in my judgment also harm the setting of the Grade II* listed Church of Christ the Saviour, diminishing its role as an important Town Centre landmark. While I accept that, considered in isolation, the design of the proposed tower is of high architectural quality, I consider that it would not contribute to the distinctiveness and identity of Ealing, and would be dominant and overbearing in the predominantly low rise context of Ealing Town Centre and development surrounding Haven Green.

You might paraphrase this as “a good scheme, but too big”. It is worth considering what drives this “bulk and massing”. Sure it is profit. That’s what gets property developers out of bed in the morning, but profit is also what makes the world go round, so don’t knock it. Another key driver is all the public benefits we expect developers to pass on. The 79 social homes and some £10 million or so Section 106 contributions that came with this scheme, are also a major driver of the bulk and massing. The developer was asked to provide parking, and indeed there were many complaints that there was not enough, this drives bulk and massing. The cost of spanning the railway, which would transform the town centre in a very positive way, drives bulk and massing.

To fund a public transport interchange from this site would require you to drop the Twin Towers on it. If SEC want to be taken seriously it would help if they stuck to the facts first and then got realistic on the costs of public transport infrastructure.