More on this to follow...
0
More on this to follow...
More will follow on this blog shortly. Please read and act on the copied email if this affects you.
Dear OHRA Residents,
I am writing to ask that you comment on the Oak Wharf Planning Application – p/2010/4391, if you have not done so already. Ealing Planning notices with different dates have led to some confusion – on Friday of last week they confirmed the official deadline for comments is Friday 3 December (although a few days after that will be permitted). Comments can be submitted online at http://www.pam.ealing.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=128076
The developers have been putting a lot of effort into swaying opinion. There are a number of rumours that appear to emanate from the developers. Details follow:This comes across as a planned attempt to break down or pick off opposition in small pockets. The plans available on the council website appear to show more detail and investment than is usual at this stage, which implies the developers are serious about pushing through this planning application.
- Suggestions that residents are in favour (a large majority of Oak Cottages residents contacted are strongly against)
- The Hanwell Conservation Panel has given its support (they have opposed this on multiple grounds)
- Environment Agency have cleared the proposal in relation to flooding (that decision is pending and not yet received by Ealing Council)
- Ealing Planning have given their support (they have not – that process is still underway).
- The developers have been in touch with our three ward Councillors, suggesting that residents are in support of the proposal (clearly not the case, see above).
Worryingly, when local residents have raised concerns to the developers, they have said that if they do not get the planning application through, what happens with the site will be much worse.
While many of us would like to see something useful done in this great location, this planning application for five three storey townhouses bordering the River Brent in the heart of the St Mark’s and Canal Conservation is not the answer.
PLEASE WRITE OR EMAIL WITH YOUR VIEWS, OBJECTING TO THIS INAPPROPRIATE PLANNING APPLICATION.
Please do not think others will do this. Letters from each resident of a property are all counted as valid opinion.
There is an outline structure of grounds for objection at the bottom, along with full contact details. One of our Councillors has requested that they be copied in on emails. They are cc’ed in on this email, and their email addresses are yoel.gordon@ealing.gov.uk, nigel.bakhai@ealing.gov.uk, and anita.kapoor@ealing.gov.uk.
If you would like to see more details about the Planning Application the Developers will be presenting at the next Hanwell Community Forum on Tuesday 7 December at 7.45pm at St Mellitus Church Hall.
Thanks for your time.
Peter Hutchison
07736 424200
WHAT YOU CAN DO
By Post to
Ealing Planning Department
PO Box 14941
London
W5 2YP
By Email to planning@ealing.gov.uk Subject line Oak Wharf Planning Application - p/2010/4391
Online at http://www.pam.ealing.gov.uk/portal/servlets/ApplicationSearchServlet?PKID=128076
Content:
While you can make any comment you like about the planning application, Planning Services can only consider planning-related comments across the following headings:Character and heritage within a Conservation Area is clearly key and should be brought into design, external appearance and materials.
- design and layout
- external appearance and materials
- access for disabled people
- loss of daylight, sunlight and privacy of neighbours
- noise nuisance
- traffic and parking issues
- loss of, or an increase in, a particular type of use of land
Or rather,
*Also: "got trashed"? I know the writing on this blog isn't exactly poetic most of the time, but... well, I do it for free and don't have a copy editor.
A teenage girl’s car got trashed* when a concrete lamppost fell on it an hour after she passed her driving test.But, in honour of the apparent media-wide style guide that shirks driver responsibility and dictates that road incidents be reported in such a way that cyclists and pedestrians "collide with" cars and lorries, I've switched the order.
Charlotte Carrington, 19, from Sawston, passed her test just before noon and by 1pm her green Renault Clio was a write-off.In other words, it was illegally parked. I am genuinely interested to find out if journalists are advised to use the passive voice when reporting car-related criminality and anti-social behaviour, or whether it's just culturally engrained in the minds of the types of idiots who end up working for local newspapers.
It was parked on the grass verge outside her house at Woodland Road.
She said the insurance will cover the value of the car, but it will cost £900 to fix – more than the original cost of the car.And just think, all of this could've been avoided if she hadn't broken the law.
*Also: "got trashed"? I know the writing on this blog isn't exactly poetic most of the time, but... well, I do it for free and don't have a copy editor.
A handful of Hanwell residents have been getting flustered about new CPZ charges. With charges rising from 48 pence per week to a whopping 77 pence per week, it's easy to see why the poor beleaguered Ealing driver would want to complain about the council's vicious war on the motorist.
I expected Phil Taylor to come out all guns blazing over this story, but instead we got a comparatively sensible response:
Controlled parking is fundamentally flawed, because it hemorrhages money and legitimises wasteful, dangerous, and anti-social use of urban space. Pavement parking plagues Hanwell, rendering footways so narrow that anybody with a pushchair or in a wheelchair has to navigate their way on the road itself. Hanwell's roads, with cars permanently parked along their sides, are also difficult for drivers and extremely dangerous for cyclists. Yet the roads themselves aren't exactly narrow:
I expected Phil Taylor to come out all guns blazing over this story, but instead we got a comparatively sensible response:
If you look at the papers here you will see that contrary to popular belief CPZs actually cost the council money. They are a cost centre, not a profit centre.Which is not to say that free parking is an alternative whatsoever, but simply that CPZs are a token gesture that fail to even scratch the surface of the massive state and local subsidies that urban parking demands.
Controlled parking is fundamentally flawed, because it hemorrhages money and legitimises wasteful, dangerous, and anti-social use of urban space. Pavement parking plagues Hanwell, rendering footways so narrow that anybody with a pushchair or in a wheelchair has to navigate their way on the road itself. Hanwell's roads, with cars permanently parked along their sides, are also difficult for drivers and extremely dangerous for cyclists. Yet the roads themselves aren't exactly narrow:
Scraping the paintjob on that blue Peugeot a bit, you could fit four side by side. I measured. That's 7.68 metres across, or just over 25 feet.
Is this the most effective use of space in the borough? And if we really have to chuck hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money into the shredder, couldn't we ask for something more as a result? When the Ealing Conservatives released their manifesto for re-election, they boasted of the huge resources they were going to put in to cycling -- and yet, the total monetary figure stood at 1/175th of the figure for routine road maintenance for the benefit of cars. Cycling is by nature better value for everybody in the borough.
So here's my suggested alternative plan for the council: scrap the CPZ, remove the parking space altogether, and use the money & space saved to build fully segregated cycle paths on the Dutch model.
...apologies if you came here expecting a defence of unregulated free parking. That's not this blog.
Is this the most effective use of space in the borough? And if we really have to chuck hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money into the shredder, couldn't we ask for something more as a result? When the Ealing Conservatives released their manifesto for re-election, they boasted of the huge resources they were going to put in to cycling -- and yet, the total monetary figure stood at 1/175th of the figure for routine road maintenance for the benefit of cars. Cycling is by nature better value for everybody in the borough.
So here's my suggested alternative plan for the council: scrap the CPZ, remove the parking space altogether, and use the money & space saved to build fully segregated cycle paths on the Dutch model.
...apologies if you came here expecting a defence of unregulated free parking. That's not this blog.
The cycle hire scheme launched at 6am today and it is this blog's humble opinion that this is largely a good thing. It's hard to argue against something that helps solve some of London's woeful transport problems in a green way.
But!
The scheme is ludicrously overpriced. It's all very well arguing that you can swap out your bike every half hour for free (although you'd also have to wait five minutes before taking a new one), but the prices aren't comparable to similar schemes in other cities. I remarked to someone that I'd almost rather TfL had done it in the Amsterdam model and just dumped a bunch of white bikes all over the city and any of the ones that didn't end up in the canals or in people's houses could be used for free. I was somewhat shocked to hear my partner in dialogue express agreement.
It also does exactly nothing to address the real issues of cycling in London. I can't imagine locals would fancy jumping on a bike again after a few days of experiencing riding in London's traffic on cycling-hostile infrastructure, and it's not exactly the best way to enamour tourists to our city: "Hire a bike! The first half hour's free, if you survive that long! Now get the fuck out of my way or I'll drive through you."
If London's road system isn't a good ambassador for the city, then the same can be said of the bikes for cycling. Heavy, slow, and, horrifyingly, not even set up correctly, it's hardly a great advert for how wonderful cycling can be.
And, of course, the biggest issue for this Ealing blogger: Boris Johnson is only the Mayor of Zone 1, apparently. If I wanted to commute to work using these bikes, I'd have to get two buses to the nearest docking station. And then double back on myself to go to work. And then... um... pay an entire day's rental on a bike I'm not using because there's no dock nearby.
Commuting isn't exactly what you're expected to use the bikes for, but hey, the point's still valid: I would like to be able to use the bikes, even just for their intended use. The fact that it's easier, faster and cheaper for me to use public transport flies in the face of everything I know about cycling in the city. It's quite the shame. Bring the scheme out of the one-mile square radius of central London it covers, please?
As usual, the ever-enjoyable Real Cycling has a nice report on the launch day.
But!
The scheme is ludicrously overpriced. It's all very well arguing that you can swap out your bike every half hour for free (although you'd also have to wait five minutes before taking a new one), but the prices aren't comparable to similar schemes in other cities. I remarked to someone that I'd almost rather TfL had done it in the Amsterdam model and just dumped a bunch of white bikes all over the city and any of the ones that didn't end up in the canals or in people's houses could be used for free. I was somewhat shocked to hear my partner in dialogue express agreement.
It also does exactly nothing to address the real issues of cycling in London. I can't imagine locals would fancy jumping on a bike again after a few days of experiencing riding in London's traffic on cycling-hostile infrastructure, and it's not exactly the best way to enamour tourists to our city: "Hire a bike! The first half hour's free, if you survive that long! Now get the fuck out of my way or I'll drive through you."
If London's road system isn't a good ambassador for the city, then the same can be said of the bikes for cycling. Heavy, slow, and, horrifyingly, not even set up correctly, it's hardly a great advert for how wonderful cycling can be.
And, of course, the biggest issue for this Ealing blogger: Boris Johnson is only the Mayor of Zone 1, apparently. If I wanted to commute to work using these bikes, I'd have to get two buses to the nearest docking station. And then double back on myself to go to work. And then... um... pay an entire day's rental on a bike I'm not using because there's no dock nearby.
Commuting isn't exactly what you're expected to use the bikes for, but hey, the point's still valid: I would like to be able to use the bikes, even just for their intended use. The fact that it's easier, faster and cheaper for me to use public transport flies in the face of everything I know about cycling in the city. It's quite the shame. Bring the scheme out of the one-mile square radius of central London it covers, please?
As usual, the ever-enjoyable Real Cycling has a nice report on the launch day.
Real Cycling has a nice report from the Ealing Skyride that's worth your attention. (Also look for their piece on Hanwell Locks.)
This photograph caught my eye:
As Real Cycling says "'Nowhere to park'? Rubbish! Only one side of your street had parking bollarded out. You can walk across the road, can't you? Come on, it's only mild disruption for one half-day a year." And I've already made my feelings known about eighteen days being more than enough of an advance warning for finding another parking spot (the warning was more than eighteen days anyway, but whatever, they can have that one).
But as someone who's got a First in, basically, analysing the construction of discourse, and as someone who works for a TV company disseminating information, I'm a little concerned even by Real Cycling's take on this. The discourse is that a huge number of people were upset, angry, and inconvenienced by the Skyride. The reality is that was not the case.
Where are the photographs of the people cheering? Or the little girl holding up a sign and treating us as if we were riding the Tour de France? Or the way the local community came out to support the event even when they weren't riding?
Hell, if we really want to push the discourse to somewhere more serious, where are the multiple signs complaining about dangerous road conditions for cyclists and pedestrians? Because they were there. But for some reason the sole protest sign takes a special position in reporting of the event, even in the pro-bike blogs.
Going back to Real Cycling
This photograph caught my eye:
As Real Cycling says "'Nowhere to park'? Rubbish! Only one side of your street had parking bollarded out. You can walk across the road, can't you? Come on, it's only mild disruption for one half-day a year." And I've already made my feelings known about eighteen days being more than enough of an advance warning for finding another parking spot (the warning was more than eighteen days anyway, but whatever, they can have that one).
But as someone who's got a First in, basically, analysing the construction of discourse, and as someone who works for a TV company disseminating information, I'm a little concerned even by Real Cycling's take on this. The discourse is that a huge number of people were upset, angry, and inconvenienced by the Skyride. The reality is that was not the case.
Where are the photographs of the people cheering? Or the little girl holding up a sign and treating us as if we were riding the Tour de France? Or the way the local community came out to support the event even when they weren't riding?
Hell, if we really want to push the discourse to somewhere more serious, where are the multiple signs complaining about dangerous road conditions for cyclists and pedestrians? Because they were there. But for some reason the sole protest sign takes a special position in reporting of the event, even in the pro-bike blogs.
Going back to Real Cycling
Anyway, most locals seemed perfectly happy with the bikefest. Some families had put up garden chairs on the pavement outside their houses to watch the parade pass by with a small picnic.Let's not let a vocal minority shape the reporting of our event. It was a huge success, and a wonderful celebration of everything Ealing's got to offer (even if they did chicken out of going past Hanwell Clock Tower).
So, Nick Clegg's horrible performance while deputising at PMQs is not reflective of the government. David Cameron doesn't know anything at all about World War II history, despite that being basically the only thing British people do know about.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg in what was a terrible day for the goverment, with blunders and u-turns left, right and centre. But their idiocy is dangerous.
Their economic stance is so wrong that even their own quangoes are arguing against it and having to scale down growth predictions. Governments around the world are urging the ConDems not to go through with their plans. Leading economists and now even businesses are warning against the cuts. We will fall back in to recession. The successes of Labour's efforts to save the economy are becoming more visible as they're stripped away. We've got a government that, rather than making illuminated decisions based around fact and analysis, instead governs on ideology alone. An ideology that's got more in common with the 18th century than the 21st.
As an entire generation slips down the social ladder, as Britain's children go hungry and uneducated, as our grandparents struggle to survive through the winter, at least we can all have a good laugh at these buffoons.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg in what was a terrible day for the goverment, with blunders and u-turns left, right and centre. But their idiocy is dangerous.
Their economic stance is so wrong that even their own quangoes are arguing against it and having to scale down growth predictions. Governments around the world are urging the ConDems not to go through with their plans. Leading economists and now even businesses are warning against the cuts. We will fall back in to recession. The successes of Labour's efforts to save the economy are becoming more visible as they're stripped away. We've got a government that, rather than making illuminated decisions based around fact and analysis, instead governs on ideology alone. An ideology that's got more in common with the 18th century than the 21st.
As an entire generation slips down the social ladder, as Britain's children go hungry and uneducated, as our grandparents struggle to survive through the winter, at least we can all have a good laugh at these buffoons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
