Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

201695FUL | Demolition of all existing buildings and erection of replacement leisure centre (Use Class D2), facilitating affordable and market housing residential development (Use Class C3) in 6 blocks, flexible retail floorspace (Use Classes A1 - A3), plant room and energy centre, leisure centre coach parking, basement residential and leisure centre cycle and car parking, refuse/recycling storage, new servicing, vehicular and pedestrian accesses and associated highway works, new and replacement play space, public realm and public open space, landscaping and associated ground works to existing public open space. | Gurnell Leisure Centre Ruislip Road East West Ealing London W13 0AL
  • Total Consulted: 0
  • Comments Received: 1661
  • Objections: 1644
  • Supporting: 12
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 1,661|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

Mr Samuel Crouch 81 The Avenue London W138js (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 19 Sep 2020

The plans are out of keeping with the local residential area. The number of stories is too high, it will obstruct light and ruin the vista. 10 stories is the absolute maximum acceptable height, it does not need to be any taller.
The plans are overdeveloped, will cause excess traffic and strain in already busy local amenities like schools, parking and transport.
More green space is needed, not less.

Ms Michele Miskelly 10 Southdown Avenue Hanwell W7 2aq (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 07 Sep 2020

This plan is out of keeping with the surrounding area. There is no thought for the people already living nearby. There will be extra need for schools, doctors and public transport.
More people means more traffic therefore more pollution. Ealing is being defaced by the planners of Ealing. I hear the chief planning officer has recently retired with a large bank balance ...hmmm

Ms Sarah Witt 88 Midhurst Road Ealing London W13 9XR (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 01 Sep 2020

The proposals for 6 tower blocks in addition to a leisure centre, between 400 and 600 new dwellings on this site is excessive in my opinion. Much of the area is low rise housing. The addition of 6 more blocks of flats will change the character of the area substantially. The view across to parkland will be obscured if planning permission is granted. I also object on the grounds of the projected completion date being February 2024. This is too long for the area to be without a leisure centre.

Mr Tony Heaven 111 Fowlers Walk Ealing London W5 1BQ (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 01 Sep 2020

This is the most appalling idea that has come out of this dreadful council for many years.

Comment submitted date: Wed 17 Jun 2020

I cannot think of a single reason to back this lunatic plan. Councillor Bell should resign. I would normally vote Labour (Starmer is brilliant) but this "Tower Mad" council has completely lost the plot. I will be voting Conservative at the next local election for the first time In my life. I know not a single person who is in favour of this stupid idea ! Developers rubbing their hands with the profit motive. The "stocks" should be returned for the planning committee żż

Mr Aleksy ros 117 woodhouse avenue perivale ub6 8lq (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 30 Aug 2020

My name is Aleksy Ros I have previously lived in UB6 for 15 years and moved away for another 5 years and now have come back to live for good in the area. Ealing residents are being treated really unfair regarding the new development as above. Me and my whole family are against this development as this will causes really huge over crowding in the area and even worst traffic there is already... there is many more objections about this development but this would take me over a days time to note. I'm a working person and haven't got the time to write an essay. PLEASE STOP THIS AS IT WILL CAUSE REALLY BAD POLUTION, TRAFFIC IN THE AREA.

Thank You

Best Regards
A Ros

Mr Christopher John 1 Macmillan Court 309 Ruislip Road East London UB6 9FH (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 30 Aug 2020

We need more affordable housing. This is yet another gentrification process pushing out the working class locals to make way for the rich.

Dr Andrew Grigg 23 Manor Court Road Hanwell London W7 3EJ (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Thu 27 Aug 2020

If such a proposal were to be approved, it would confirm that no lessons have been learned from the appalling high-rise monstrosities built in post-war Britain. Furthermore, I am more than a little suspicious of the tactic to neglect the existing leisure centre to such an extent as to make it a health and safety concern in order to justify a completely unacceptable deal with a private developer to build what will be a blight on the area and a massive additional strain on community facilities. Is the Council/developer also proposing new schools, healthcare and other facilities to adequately support this project and the community it will create, or is the plan for the residents of this development to be supported by the existing, inadequate facilities in the surrounding area? The existing leisure centre is in serious need of repair or redevelopment, as I'm sure most residents would agree, but I urge the Council to insist on a major reduction in scale to the rest of the proposed works.

Mrs Jane Duncan 14White Ledges Ealing London W138JB (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 26 Aug 2020

Gurnell Leisure Centre is one of the best such facilities in west London and the only 50m pool. It came as no surprise when our current council refused to reopen it as they are in hock to developers and have been trying to close it for years. They have deliberately allowed it to become run down by doing only limited maintenance and they have used lockdown as the excuse they wanted to close it down.
The proposed development is quite appalling. Apart from the fact that it is high-rise, it contains no social housing which is what is needed to solve the current housing problem and nobody believes the concept of 'affordable housing'. Regular users of the centre, most of whom live in Ealing proper, have little confidence that the council will include a new pool and centre in the middle of a block of flats. Rather like 'affordable housing' such facilities tend to disappear as soon as the developers move in.
The land was given to the Borough for recreational use only, it is designated Metropolitan Open Space and is a flood plain and the council has no business building on it at all. The proposal is ugly, much too high and dense and will not be an attractive place to live as it has few commuter transport links, will add enormously to traffic problems in the area and cause problems for the already congested access to the A40 Westen Avenue. Providing limited parking, as this council has done with tower blocks all over Ealing, on the spurious basis that we have plenty of public transport, is an obvious hazard as people will own cars whether or not the council considers they need them.
Demolishing this centre will leave Ealing -- the main and largest town in the Borough, without a swimming pool. Neither Acton's Victorian pool nor the small one at Dormers Wells will adequately replace such a well-used facility and Northolt requires crossing the A40 and has little parking.

Dr Steven Potier-Jones 420 Greenford Avenue London W7 3DB (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 25 Aug 2020

The development is too high and will spoil the whole look of that side of the road and the green fields behind. A low rise development would be much more in keeping with the area. There is also concern re extra traffic and parking with such a big development as the road is heavily congested at peak times. Ealing centre has already been spoiled with the out of character Dickens Yard build and the local population dont want another high rise spoiling what is already a heavily built up area opposite Gurnell.

Mr Martin Bell 34 Lindfield Road Ealing London W5 1QR (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 25 Aug 2020

As a chartered surveyor and Ealing resident of some 42 years I take more than a passing interest in local property issues. The major attraction of Ealing is that through the decades it has managed to retain and enhance its Victorian and Edwardian heritage. A good example of this is the Ealing Broadway Shopping Centre, which despite being a modern building (1985) is of a scale appropriate to the existing shopping street and adjoining residential housing. The building also has architectural features that "echo" the Victorian bays and projections found in many of the existing commercial and residential properties. Over some 35 years this building has "stood the test of time" and has adapted to change.

When I was a child during the 1960s local authorities encouraged car parks, road flyovers, and tower blocks, seemingly on the basis of economic cost and that they were perceived as different; modern. Fashions come and go, but very quickly, in fact by the 1980s, many of these concrete structures were slated as,"a blot on the landscape", out of character with the existing heritage, and of uncompromising design. In London, there are some exceptions (arguably) like the Barbican development (EC2) and Trellick Tower (W10). Elevated concrete structures like the A4 and Westway (A40) physiologically divide town centres/communities like Hammersmith and Brentford. Buildings and structures can divide opinion and remain controversial for decades. Our New Build high-rise blocks are uncompromising and within a short time period will be unloved. This will particularly be the case when atmospheric pollutants, solar fading, and weathering processes, get to work on the external fabric. You are alerted to our grey, dull, and "blackened" 1960s concrete structures. However,new developments can improve communities, and a good example is Acton Gardens (generally 6/8 storey heights from memory), which is a significant improvement on the 1960s tower blocks of the former South Acton Estate. But alas, now there is the proposal to once again "blot the landscape" on the TFL land strip running from Chiswick up to Acton Town station, and very possibly beyond to include the Acton Depot. This amounts to building a wall, not a housing development, and is of an outrageous scale.! For the Gurnell development (W13) the proposal references the existing 1960s tower blocks as justification for the New Build - comical!

The thing is, these high-rise developments are popping-up literally everywhere and collectively they are changing West London suburbia into a City Landscape. There has been no public consultation on this fundamental change of policy. Ealing, in particular, are running at a pace with high-rise and ignoring the views of their residents. Perhaps this is a "wearing-down" policy to create inertia. Well I can assure you that I am not alone with my concerns over the form of redevelopment taking place. There is a lack of local infrastructure to meet the needs of the rapidly increasing population. Cross Rail, the Central Line, and other rail networks could overload with the number of additional passengers. Cross Rail was to relieve congestion on the existing rail/tube network and to facilitate passengers from further afield, like those commuters living in Maidenhead & Reading. Potentially the additional commuters from the new developments in Southall, Ealing and Acton will absorb much of the additional capacity, and long before the expectation of transport planners. Ealing have a duty to their local residents, the Council Tax payers! Who exactly are to be the purchasers of the new high-rise flats. I do not envisage there to be 1,000s of young Ealing residents queuing up to purchase the 1 & 2 bedroom flats! Even as shared ownership affordability is problematic. No, they will very likely be mostly sold to out of borough purchasers and foreign investors. What exactly is being done to meet the needs of our local families and individuals on the Ealing register?

Ealing may well argue that many of the high-rise developments are simply "statement" blocks of a "cutting-edge" design. Yes, some of the designs would sit comfortably with other high-rise blocks in Central London. However, this is not the case in suburban West London. All that is being achieved is the destruction of our hinterland. The density, scale, height, and massing is totally at odds with that of the existing housing stock. A prime example of unsuitable development is the proposal for the two tower blocks at the West Ealing station location.

Many residents feel ignored and annoyed that Ealing are determined to create a City Landscape without full consultation. Perhaps the only way to resolve the issue is to pursue legal action on the grounds that the council are "ultra viries" in respect of this fundamental policy change.

I would encourage you and your fellow councilors to reconsider many of the New Build proposals and to positively engage with Ealing residents.

Showing 1-10 of 1,661|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution