Planning Department Issues in Ealing

Related links

Local Ealing resident Victor Mishiku has more experience than most of dealing with local authority planning departments. He has helped thousands of different cases throughout the years. In 1986 he formed the Covenant Movement successfully halting the demolition of a house in Longfield Road using covenants.

He outlines the major concerns with Ealing's planning department.

Lack of Contact

Residents feel that the planners are distant. In former days, and as still happens in many other Councils, concerned residents could telephone the Council and ask to speak to the relevant case officer over a planning application in the neighbourhood. Calls are now only received by a general call centre as a messaging service and it may be days before a reply is received. Not everyone uses mobile phones and one has to wait around in case a call is missed. Some calls are never returned.

Notice of the Application:

The law requires that Councils must allow a minimum of 21 days for comments. This period is by law to be counted from the date of service. The Council notices used to state this but were altered to make it 21 days from the date of the notice. Notices are often sent out second class and may be sent out over weekends or public holidays. The Council offices are closed over Xmas and the New Year and if a neighbour wishes to view documents at the Council (not everyone has a computer and printer and the A4 reduced size Plans are often near illegible and cannot always be accurately scaled). Added to this problem is the frequent report that notices were not received in the first place. This happened in two very recent cases both in Acton.

When applications have finally come to the attention of affected neighbours, it can be very late in the proceedings and sometimes, it transpires that there is a legal defect in the application but little time is left to bring this up.

The planners also have a very unpleasant habit when, on occasions, being anxious to push through an unpopular development, they complete their report to committee before the official notification period has run. This happened in the 43 Castlebar Road case and it is reprehensible, unfair and against natural justice. The Committee don't like it either!

Understanding the Plans:

Very few laypersons can always understand the Plans and the A4 reduced Plans on the Council's Website are near illegible and not easily scaled in many cases as they have been shrunk down and the scale is destroyed. There is no dedicated team of officers to explain or assist residents concerned about what is happening next door or at the back of the garden.

Some planners are too close to developers: By contrast, for many years, developers have been able to meet the planning officers and have discussions obtaining advice to such an extent that the officer seems to consider it his or her own application! Subsequently, the same officer is set to assess the application and recommend it to Committee. It is unlikely that an officer who has become part of the developer's team so to say, is going to turn down an application that he or she had a hand in producing or perfecting.

Garden Grabbing/Backland Development:

The whole country revolted against back garden development and in Ealing in 1990 new Policies were introduced by Cllr. Norman Pointing militating against backland development. Chris Patten, then Secretary of State for the Environment issued new Planning Guidance designed to protect established residential areas. As recently as June 2010, the Government introduced more protection of garden land by changing the designation of gardens (formerly "Brownfield" to "Greenfield" the same as for Parks). The present senior planners in Ealing are continually recommending back garden developments in Ealing and Acton in particular and disregarding all of the efforts of thousands of petitioners to conserve our Victorian heritage properties and the spacious gardens to which they belong. In contrast, the London Borough of Harrow have been strengthening their policies and only last month issued a formidable Garden Land SPD (Supplementary Planning Document).

Out of Character:

Ealing planners persist in recommending out of character developments - we have seen this during the last 3 months with out of character developments at 43 Castlebar Road, 96 Gordon Road, 1 Rosemont Road all being supported by the senior planners with favourable recommendations given to the Planning Committee - which the Committee Councillors felt unable to accept. More backgarden cases are in the pipeline in Acton in Creswick Road (the road that suffered the worst ever desecration of a beautiful garden and elegant 1920's cottage last year) and at another property in Acton.

Ignoring Legal Discrepancies:

Residents sometimes raise issues over land ownership, encroachment, etc and are told by the planners that it is a private matter and cannot be taken into account - but this is not right, as an applicant has to provide a correct and true Declaration as to the ownership of all of the land to which the application relates. If a false declaration is made, this is a criminal offence and in any event by law, a Council must not entertain an application deficient in the legal requirements. This is barely observed by case officers who brush it aside wrongly telling neighbours that it is not a planning matter.

Site Visits:

Case officers do not regularly carry out proper site visits viewing from neighbours houses and gardens. The viewpoint can be quite different. Consider the Ant and the Steamroller - to the Steamroller driver, there's nothing much to see but the poor Ant has a mountain in front of him! Neighbours often feel that they are just brushed aside as an occupation hazard or nuisance interfering with the developers and their planning colleagues who speak the same language.

General Impression:

Neighbours often feel that the developers and planners have it all sewn up and even when defects are found, the planners try to help out the developers perhaps recommending conditions that can never be complied with, etc. to try to save the developer.

At the Planning Committee on 13th March 2013, Committee Members from all three parties criticised the case officer's report in the 43 Castlebar Road case that had been put forward for approval by senior planners - as being "in defiance of reality" "not to be trusted" "absurd" and "an insult to the intelligence".

Residents feel that the planners are generally dismissive and nor caring enough.

Victor Mishiku

The Covenant Movement

May 9th 2013