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: 1696
  • Objections: 1678
  • Supporting: 12
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 1,696|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

Mr Neville Carney 57 Costons Avenue Greenford UB6 8RL (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 28 Feb 2021

There has always been social and psychological issues with living in high rise blocks, has nothing been learnt from issues in the seventies or has it been forgotten?
The feeling of isolation.
The lifts not operating.
Misuse of common corridors and stairwells for crime and anti social behaviour and the fear this causes to residents.
The local infra structure will struggle with this development.
There will be many extra vehicles and any suggested discouragement to new residents not to have cars or that they will be people who do not have cars is na´ve and laughable.
It will cause more traffic in what is an often congested area and further parking issues that will without doubt lead to the council offering parking permit schemes for the surrounding areas which will be a further stealth tax charged to local residents and not paid for by the not the council, even though even though it will be caused by their actions .
Areas around rivers are not built on for a good reason. The River Brent is prone to flooding and has burst its banks close to the proposed development this year and further construction will only exacerbate this issue.
Whether this council like it or not, this planned building scheme and others like it that are dotted around the borough, is seen by the electorate of Ealing as a cynical ploy to get as much money as possible from as little ground area possible, it has nothing to do with providing affordable housing and a service to the residents of Ealing nor any consideration for the quality of life and the care of the beauty of the borough.
If Gurnell Leisure Centre and other buildings in the borough had been maintained properly in the first place there would not have been the need to have ecological and financial crippling expensive schemes labelled as a service to the residents of Ealing.

Mr Anthony Ferguson 38a Waldermar Avenue London W139py (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 28 Feb 2021

My additional objections are to the miserably low architectural quality of the exterior design, and to the inadequate provision for, and integration of, social housing.

Mrs sara mahon 80 Clitherow Avenue London W7 2BT (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 28 Feb 2021

This is too high and too big. Very ugly. Ealing is no longer going to be considered a pretty town. It is loads of flats that no one locally will be able to afford.
I will move out of the area if this goes up

Ms Helen Ferguson 38A Waldemar Avenue London W13 9PY (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 27 Feb 2021

Not enough affordable housing for families. Too dense, too high, too expensive. A cheaper option to refurbish Gurnell Leisure Centre must be found.

Ms Mari Posiadlo 37 millet Road Greenford Ub69sq (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 27 Feb 2021

Our beautiful green area will be destroyed. The area will be over populated.

Mr Alexander Bishop 8 Castlebar Hill London W5 1TD (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 27 Feb 2021

The current proposals to redevelop the Gurnell leisure centre site are objectionable on at least three grounds:

First, the existing leisure centre manages to serve the local community but is very busy at peak periods. How can the proposed new leisure centre possible accommodate the existing demands of the local community in addition to the new demand that will be created by the occupants of the flats. If developed according to the current plans, it would present no gain to Ealing - on the contrary it could only be a loss.

Second, the proposal is to build several tower blocks on ground that is completely unfit for a development of this sort. The land next to the river Brent is an historic flood plain, it is precisely developments of this sort up and down the country have have contributed to the flooding crises that we are increasingly facing and which will be made worse by climate change. All this is to say nothing of the fact that Ealing is an historically green borough and this development will concrete over much needed green space. It strikes me that the proposal represents nothing more than a cynical attempt to extract as much money as possible from an area of land owned by the council - on behalf of the residents of the borough.

Thirdly, perhaps most importantly, the current proposal falls well short of the borough's own target of 50% affordable housing. If the council can only afford to build the proposed leisure centre and tower blocks by selling off fewer than 50% of the units at affordable rates then it simply should not be built. A small amount of money should instead be raised to refurbish the existing centre and provide a benefit to Ealing's existing residents. Time and again developments in London are allowed to go ahead, which either exclude or segregate lower income households from tenants who can afford to pay more for housing, in direct contravention of commitments made at every level of government.

The current proposal for the redevelopment is a failure and must be rejected.

Ms Maria De Lahitte 12 Lyndhurst Rd Greenford UB6 9QR (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 27 Feb 2021

Loss of a much loved community SHALLOW AND RECREATIONAL pool. The new development would NOT provide a pool of similar characteristics.
Loss of community skate park loved by local youngsters, which keeps them busy, fit and social.
Greenford is already overcrowded.

Mrs Sarah Brereton 49 Balfour Road London W139TN (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 27 Feb 2021

The extent of this development, the number of buildings and height of them is too great. Our borough is being ruined by over development. Our services, including hospitals and schools are already over stretched.

Mrs Kiran Grigg 32 Mount Park Road London W5 2RS (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 27 Feb 2021

I wish to object to the high-rise nature of the proposed development wish I believe is totally out of keeping with the surrounding area.

Miss Raquel Velazquez 87 Chinnor Crescent Greenford UB6 9NY (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sat 27 Feb 2021

I don't want the development

Showing 1-10 of 1,696|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution