Phil Taylor

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Naturally I am appalled that such a cultured man should resort to the use of such an outdated cliche as “selling the family silver”.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.

The dreadful Acton Afghan mansion story is back in the Mail today.

Typically for the Mail they fail to convey who is to blame here. This story is excruciating for Ealing Council as we have a peripheral role in the administration of this stupid scheme, called the Local Housing Allowance Scheme.

The article is not as clear as it could be. This is a Labour government scheme which means that central government cash is being spent on this family. Ealing Council cannot stop this situation the way the law and the scheme are currently drafted.

If you want to blame someone, blame the government that has lost control of immigration and then uses our taxes in such a stupid way.

At last the results from the Gunnersbury Park consultation are up on the Hounslow website for all to see, see here. I will reserve any comments I have for the meeting of the Joint Advisory Panel (details here). It is a shame the results have taken so long to emerge. The consultation was open until the end of September and the decision was taken to analyse and try to understand the many comments that were submitted with the responses. Something like two thirds of people made comments so it was thought to be important to analyse them and get a sense of them. It was hoped to get the Advisory Board together in October but the earliest they all, or at least most of them, could get together was Monday next week, hence the delay. We can now stop speculating and start discussing the actual figures. Enjoy.

Comments by Friends of Gunnersbury Park and Museum Chairman, James Wisdom, on the Ealing Today website on Tuesday have not been very helpful. One is tempted to say “With friends like this …” Nine tenths of what Wisdom says is nonsense. He is wrong to say that Hounslow have not been kept informed and he is wrong to say that Ealing has changed its mind.

Ealing’s Conservative administration has always had problems with the idea of building on the park. It is not what we got into power to do. There are many, including officers of both authorities, English Heritage and the Hounslow administration who might see this idea as a “Get out of jail free” card. This was not the view of Ealing Council. To underline this we issued the following statement to the press on April 8th before this whole process kicked off:

The concept of enabling development is extremely unattractive to our borough to the point of being unacceptable.