Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

181865FUL | Demolition of existing dwellinghouse and construction of a three storey plus basement residential building comprising of nine (9) flats with associated amenity space, car parking space, refuse and cycle storage. | 18 St Stephens Road West Ealing London W13 8HH
  • Total Consulted: 0
  • Comments Received: 214
  • Objections: 213
  • Supporting: 1
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 213|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

Dr SM Hung 2B Madeley Rd Ealing W5 2LH (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 04 Dec 2018

When the Planning Department of the Council, which is funded by local residents, and is supposed to serve the local residents, chose to approve an out-of-character, out-of-scale, garden grabbing development despite massive local opposition, it shows all of us that something is rotten within the Planning Department and the Council.

When something like the proposed is built, it is going to damage the cherished character of the neighbourhood for decades to come, all because of a quick profit for the developer/owner, and/or perhaps it helps the Council to blindly meet new housing targets imposed from on high.

If the development is allowed to go ahead, each objector should try to tell at least 10 local friends and acquaintances about this vandalism based on what the Planning Department and the Councillors did, and to spread the fact that these individuals don't care about the heritage we appreciate, and are happy to help the developer snatch it from our children.

Ms Jennifer Liggins Flat 12 St Stephens Court The Avenue London W13 8HX (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 01 Dec 2018

This area is well known to be a leafy suburb. This building in particular is rather beautiful and if anything it should be listed to keep the individuality of this beautiful property to stay in keeping with the area. A three story property will be an absolute eyesore, not at all in keeping with the church and surrounding houses.

Mrs Elizabeth Pietronave 6 Wimborne Gardens Ealing London W13 8BZ (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 30 Nov 2018

I had hoped that this awful proposal had been put to bed, so I was horrified to come home to a letter saying that it will be considered at the next Planning Committee meeting on 12th December.

Given that this application has attracted 210 written objections and that over 1,000 people have signed a petition against it, why has it not been refused? Is there no democracy in Ealing?

Comment submitted date: Sat 12 May 2018

As a very near neighbour, I wish to object to this development, for reasons including:
1. St Stephens is a low-density neighbourhood. Replacing 1 house with 9 flats that have 22 bedrooms, potentially accommodating 40 people, changes the neighbourhood for the worse. St Stephens is a lovely area for all who live, study, work in or visit it, adjacent to a conservation area and populated by beautiful turn-of-the-century houses. Once it's lost, it's gone for ever.
2. The proposed basement digging, right next to No.1 Wimborne Gdns, comes with a very high risk of subsidence for No.1 and adjacent properties. Wimborne Gdns houses have a history of severe subsidence which has led to some houses being underpinned. Buildings insurance premiums are very high as a result of past subsidence. Would they rise again if this goes ahead?
3. Nos. 1, 3, & 5 Wimborne Gardens would lose privacy, light, and be overlooked by a massive ugly block.
4. The developer plans to replace 1 house that has 4 parking spaces, with 9 dwelling that would have 4 parking spaces. The 9 dwellings could come with 18 cars. St Stephens Rd immediately outside is hugely congested at school drop-off and pick-up times, as Notting Hill Junior School parents need to drop off their kids. If those parents are forced to stop in the middle of the road to drop junior school-age kids off, it will put the kids in danger. Instead, the developer should provide at least 1 off-road parking space for every dwelling.
5. The plans are contrary to the deed of covenant dated 5th June 1899, which states that one house per lot is permitted.
6. The existing property is a beautiful, very well-maintained Victorian house, which could be extended into a great apartment block of 4 flats, with off-road parking for all flats. Why knock down this lovely house?
7. The proposed building is very badly-designed, ugly slum housing with basement bedrooms. It looks like it would be horrible to live in and to to look at from the outside, with poor quality design that's very different from neighbouring buildings. Why can't the architect design a building that borrows features from neighbouring buildings and provides good quality accommodation?
8. The loss of the lovely mature trees at the far end of the garden of 18 St Stephens Rd is unnecessary.

This development looks so poorly thought through that I'm suspicious that it's not a serious application and that the developer "The Maybria Group" is playing a game of cat-and-mouse with the council, whereby they put in a terrible proposal for 9 dwellings so that when that gets knocked back, so that when they then put in a slightly less terrible proposal for 6 dwellings, the council and neighbours are so relieved that they don't challenge it. Hopefully the council will take a dim view of such games and swiftly reject this bad application.

Mr Andrew Zemek 8 Lakeside Edgehill Road London W13 8HN (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 06 Nov 2018

If approved, this development would result in lots of problems for this already densely built area, e.g. loss of privacy, parking problems, roads congestion etc. I do object.

Mrs Salma Sebti 1 Wimborne Gardens London W13 8BY (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 26 Sep 2018


Please refer to the 3rd objection letter dated 9th september and sent to Mr Nelson (by email) regarding amendments to the drawings which unfortunately don't change the incongruous and unneighbourly character of this proposed development and do not address issues regarding flood risk and susbsidence.

I give my consent to upload this letter in full without redaction.
Thanking you.

Comment submitted date: Thu 02 Aug 2018

I would like to add the following 2 points to my comment:
1- Half of the houses on wimborne gardens (including those which are the closest to 18St Stephens) have been underpinned and have history of subsidence which makes us all cery concerned about the damages that a basement would create. How can we unsure that our houses won't move and underpinning work won't be needed.
2- I wanted to bring to your attention the recent appeal dismissal at 1 Golden Manor which has a lot of similarities with this case. Some of the main points have been summarised below and I encourage you to read through the rationale of dismissal as it would definitely apply to Ranmore and neighbouring properties:
"10. The appeal dwelling would also appear tightly positioned to its boundaries with no back garden and a relatively high plot to build ratio, thereby creating a cramped, overdevelopment of the site. This would be uncharacteristic of the prevailing pattern of development, where houses largely sit comfortably within their plots with spacious rear gardens.

11. Although the appeal site differs insofar as the main garden area of No 1 is positioned to the side of the dwelling, it presently provides an important gap between it and No 2. This allows views through to the back of the houses along Golden Manor and their evidently spacious and verdant rear gardens. Moreover, from the rear of the properties along Golden Manor, this open and spacious aspect towards the high amenity value trees in Manor Court Green makes a significant contribution to the spacious and sylvan character of this part of the Conservation area. The appeal site and the gardens in this area, therefore provide a valuable character resource appreciated by the many residents surrounding the site.

12. The appeal proposal would substantially close this visual gap and in doing so would seriously compromise the existing sense of spaciousness in this prominent location. Moreover, the introduction of a building in this location of the scale proposed would be visually obtrusive to those properties surrounding it and create an undue degree of visual enclosure.

15. The proposal would also be contrary to London Plan Policies 3.5, 7.1, 7.4 and 7.6, Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD) Policies 7B and 7.4 and DS Policies 1.1(g) and 2.10. These policies require, amongst other things, that buildings should provide a high quality design response that has regard to the pattern and grain of the existing spaces and streets in orientation, scale, proportion and mass and contribute to a positive relationship between the urban structure and natural landscape features.

18. The positioning of the dwelling immediately adjacent to the boundary of No 3 Golden Manor, combined with unrelieved two storey scale, would result in the outlook from the garden area of No 3 being dominated by a mass of largely unrelieved built form in a way that I consider would be overbearing and oppressive.

21. ......I appreciate that the appellant received positive pre-application advice but this is given without prejudice and cannot pre-determine the outcome of a subsequent application, which must take account of all material factors. In this regard, I appreciate that officer's recommendation was that the application be approved. However, the Council is not duty bound to follow the advice and recommendations of its professional officers, provided it is able to substantiate the reason for its decision, which I have found to be the case here. Furthermore, even if I had not found that the proposal would also result in harm to the living conditions of the neighbouring property, the harm to the character and appearance of the area is sufficient on its own to warrant withholding planning permission.

22. As the site forms part of a residential garden in a built up area, it does not meet the Framework's definition of previously developed land."

Dr Gill Reed 42 Wimborne Gardens Ealing W13 8BZ (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 26 Sep 2018

Proposed Demolition of "Ranmore" 18 St. Stephen's Road, adjacent to 1 Wimborne Gardens Ealing W13. Erection of Four-Storey Twin Blocks of flats (incl. Basement) and Car-Parking.
"St. Stephen's Park Estate, Ealing". Planning Ref: 181865FUL
Please see the full unredacted version of my letter (pdf version) sent by email to Olivier Nelson (Case Officer) dated 25th September 2018 and copied to Councillors on the Planning Committee.
I shall be grateful if you would consider the points raised in my letter.
NB. I hereby authorise and request Ealing Council to publish this objection letter in full in the documents section for this planning application without redacting or defacing it in any way.

Dr Ruth simpson 13 Lancaster Gardens LONDON W13 9JY (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 04 Aug 2018

It is outrageous that a beautiful Edwardian building is demolished in this way when the only motive is profit. The council needs to take into consideration the impact on the character of the area

Miss Ann Marie Tighe 17 Dell Way Ealing W13 8JH (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 03 Aug 2018

Totally inappropriate and a seriously unsustainable proposal to demolish a habitable and useful building with the associated effect on the environment. This development would negate a years recycling in this ward.

Mrs Tracy Posner 41 Colebrooke Avenue London W13 8JZ (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 03 Aug 2018

So many reasons why this just wrong

Mrs Susan Michael 70 Lavington Road Ealing London W13 9LR (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 03 Aug 2018


Showing 1-10 of 213|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution