Skip to main content

Planning – Application Comments

Help with this page (opens in a new window)

203275FULR3 | Demolition of existing buildings and phased redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use development comprising residential, office, civic/community uses and flexible non-residential floor space, below ground ancillary space (plant, car and cycle parking space, etc.), replacement and relocation of the existing sub-station, associated enabling landscape and public realm works and provision of new pedestrian and vehicle access. (Regulation 3 Application by London Borough of Ealing) (Amended Plans and Additional Documentation). This application is accompanied by an Environmental Statement required by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations, 2017. The proposals comprise a Major Development that may be likely to affect the character or setting of listed buildings and/or of a Conservation Area. (Please note this is a Re-Consultation in relation to: (1) Amended Plans and Additional Documentation received in respect of the planning application below and (2) Further Information in relation to the Environmental Impact Assessment, for which a formal notice has been placed in the Press). | London Borough Of Ealing Perceval House 14-16 Uxbridge Road Ealing London W5 2HL
  • Total Consulted: 0
  • Comments Received: 851
  • Objections: 845
  • Supporting: 4
  • View all comments icon

Search Filters

Collapse All|Expand All|Showing 1-10 of 851|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

Mr john sears 18 mattock lane london w55bg (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 22 Jan 2021

I strongley object to this development on the grounds listed above and in particular the impact that even more residences will have on the heavily used Walpole Park particularly that Filmwoks has yet to be occupied. In addition, the unacceptable intrusion into the landscape view from the only Grade 1 listed building in Ealing, Pitzhanger Manor, and the associated grounds.
A building of this height would have a very detrimental effect on the town landscape, which I consider unacceptable.
The building as propsed has no design merits worth consideration and should be hidden by the existing town centre buildings. The design should include the relationship with the locally listed old Fire Station.

Comment submitted date: Wed 21 Oct 2020

I object to this planning proposal as I believe it is totaly out of keeping with the centre of Ealing. The new centre is also, I consider to be over development principally due to the excessive height, when related to the Victorian centre of Ealing. Futher high rise buildings will be another overbearing factor against trying to keep the centre of Ealing pleasant and of a human scale.
If high rise developments are to be considered necessary they should be grouped in and area that already has this type of building such a North Ealing.
The only local recreation facility is Worpole Park and that is extreemly crowded in good weather. Additional pressure will be imposed when the Film Works is occupied and I emphatically believe that hundreds of additional residents in the area will cause overcrowding and tension in the park.

Mrs Dorrie Baker 22 waldemar avenue ealing w139py (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Wed 20 Jan 2021

This development is completely out of character in style and height for central Ealing. Additionally, I object to the demolition of this comparatively recent building

Mr Jonathan Rackowe 2 Kingsdowne Court 10 The Common, Ealing London W5 3TT (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 19 Jan 2021

The block next to Longfield Avenue is simply too high - out of character with nearby buildings and detrimental on views around the neighbourhood.

The proposed buildings are nearer to the road than existing buildings - again to the detriment of the look and character of the area. Ealing needs to retain open spaces, NOT build on them.

Comment submitted date: Tue 20 Oct 2020

I write to object to planning application 203275FULR3.

Ealing Council appears to be determined to continue destroying the character of Ealing and turning it into another modernised urban landscape.

My objections are:

1. The design and massing of the overall scheme is detrimental to the character of Ealing.
2. Over development in Ealing, particularly along the Uxbridge Road is creating a bland urban townscape without consideration of Ealing's green environment or its history.
3. The increase in residential population will result in more cars in the area leading to increased traffic congestion.
4. The increase in residential population will result in more cars in the area leading to increased traffic congestion.
5. The increase in residential population will lead to increased pressure on GP and other NHS services, which are already oversubscribed in the borough of Ealing.
6. The increase in residential population will lead more pressure on schools in the local area, which are already struggling to deal with the number of children living in the area.

Mr Godfrey Thomas 38 Ranelagh Road Ealing London W5 5RJ (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 19 Jan 2021

My primary objections are on the height of the proposed towers and over development in a relatively small area.
Ealing is still a leafy borough with lovely green spaces (never appreciated more by its inhabitants than at the current time) with elegant Victorian and Edwardian character. A vision of the town centre which builds on these advantages has been the subject of much work over the years by local groups and the Council. Back in the 1980s the development of the new Broadway Centre was an excellent example of a successful outcome to these endeavours. But this new proposal is the antithesis - it is a brutal over development that will be very detrimental to the centre of Ealing (and after Grenfell and Covid-19 the attractiveness and marketability of high-rise towers will plummet).
Please Council, listen to your residents and halve the height of these towers and lessen the density of the proposed development.

Ms Rosemary Williams 15 Hastings Road Ealing London W13 8QY (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Tue 19 Jan 2021

Over development of the site. City density for an urban environment. Tower blocks too tall. Family dwellings are required in the area this solution not suitable for that cohort. Counting the number of units built is a box ticking exercise the council is too familiar with.
I'm sure when Percival house was planned and built the council was pleased with it, look how long it has lasted! Not very long or not as long as it should have. Please make sure the current development does not have built in obsolescence for future residents, the economy and environment.

Mrs Alison Clausen-Thue 92 Gordon Road West Ealing London W13 8PT (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Mon 18 Jan 2021

I refer to my earlier objection regarding this proposal and the miriad reasons for objecting. I oppose the revised proposal which has not addressed any of the major objections to this development and has merely tinkered around the edges, proposing changes to the colour of the cladding.

Mr David Clausen-Thue 92 Gordon Road Ealing London W13 8PT (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 17 Jan 2021

When I became aware that the planning application had bee re-submitted following consultation, for a very brief moment I had hope that someone at the Council was at last listening to the comments made by Ealing residents. Upon reading that the change in the application was in respect of a change in the hue of the terracotta panels, and not addressing the fundamental issues of excessive height and overdevelopment of the area, it made me fully understand how out of touch the Council is with the views of its residents.

The reasons for my objections are as follows:

The proposals are completely inappropriate for the area and will ruin both the immediate area as well as the wider area. The fact that it is a Council property with the Council Planning Committee opining on the development makes it all the worse. The conflict of interest for the Planning Committee on this proposal is so clear and is made worse by the leaflet that was sent out, with both the names of Vistry and Ealing Council on the leaflet, thus endorsing the leaflet, which did not refer to the height of the proposal and hid the tower behind a tree. This is shameful.

The 26-storey tower is far too high and will tower over Ealing's historic town centre and the neighbouring properties. It is completely out of character with the surrounding area and will ruin this part of Ealing forever.

Cramming so many new homes, plus the Council offices and library onto this relatively small site pushed hard up against the railway is completely excessive.

The design, appearance and scale of the new offices next to the Grade II listed Town Hall are all wrong. Very tellingly, the application includes no heritage assessment as Government policy requires it to. Historic England have criticised it but the application doesn't report what they say.

Historic England have been particularly critical of the impact of the proposals on the views from Walpole Park. The proposed tall building imposes a Central London scale of development and highly urban form that would sit directly on the axis of the view from the Serpentine lake and the Grade II listed bridge.

No serious assessment has been made of the overbearing impact of the development on nearby residential streets - Craven Av, Gordon Road, Longfield Road, Castlebar Road, The Avenue, Carlton Gardens, Carlton Road etc). Images in the Design and Access statement carefully hide the height of the development behind buildings. This is completely shameful and was obviously done with the intention of mis-leading people. From most vantage points the proposals will look terrible.

Most of the commercial ground floor units on the site will never be occupied. The units are similar to those at Dickens Yard which have been empty for years. Further from the town centre they have even less chance of finding tenants. Far better to use these spaces for homes so that the building heights can be reduced.

Perceval House is less than 40 years old and an awful lot of embodied energy went into its construction. A Council as concerned about climate change as Ealing's claims to be should not be demolishing it. The far greener course would be to refurbish it.

The Council claims it's providing much needed affordable housing through its building unproven commercial new company 'Broadway Living'. Only 14.7% of the new homes will be 'genuinely affordable' according to the Mayor's definition of being let at 35% of the market value. Less than 50% of the units are even nominally 'affordable'. What's more, there will be very few family sized homes. Most of the flats are 1 or 2 bedrooms. Only 7 new homes will have 3 bedrooms.

The turning bans at Longfield Avenue mean most traffic will access the development from the North, encouraging traffic to rat-run through residential streets both during construction and after it is finished. Why a Council, so insistent on creating Low Traffic Neighbourhoods elsewhere in the borough, would propose this is a mystery.

Servicing arrangements for the both the new homes and the Council offices are totally inadequate. No onsite access to the new homes is to be provided and there will be just one loading bay outside the bollards at the north end of the site. This will be completely insufficient to meet the demand for deliveries, tradespeople, removal vehicles etc to 477 flats. The new development will Inevitably cause illegal parking along Longfield Avenue and Craven Avenue to the rear of the site.

If this scheme is allowed to go ahead, in my opinion, it will have a devastating impact on the centre of Ealing.


Comment submitted date: Sun 18 Oct 2020

I strongly object to these monstrous proposals in the strongest possible terms. It is completely inappropriate for the area and will ruin both the immediate area as well as the wider area. The fact that it is a Council property with the Council Planning Committee opining on the development makes it all the worse. The conflict of interest for the Planning Committee on this proposal is so clear and is made worse by the leaflet that was sent out, with both the names of Vistry and Ealing Council on the leaflet, thus endorsing the leaflet, which did not refer to the height of the proposal and hid the tower behind a tree. This is shameful.

The details of why I most strongly object to the proposals are as follows:

1. The 26-storey tower is far too high and will tower over Ealing's historic town centre and the neighbouring properties. It is completely out of character with the surrounding area and will ruin this part of Ealing forever.

2. Cramming so many new homes, plus the Council offices and library onto this relatively small site pushed hard up against the railway is completely excessive.

3. The design, appearance and scale of the new offices next to the Grade II listed Town Hall are all wrong. Very tellingly, the application includes no heritage assessment as Government policy requires it to. Historic England have criticised it but the application doesn't report what they say.

4. Historic England have been particularly critical of the impact of the proposals on the views from Walpole Park. The proposed tall building imposes a Central London scale of development and highly urban form that would sit directly on the axis of the view from the Serpentine lake and the Grade II listed bridge.

5. No serious assessment has been made of the overbearing impact of the development on nearby residential streets - Craven Av, Gordon Road, Longfield Road, Castlebar Road, The Avenue, Carlton Gardens, Carlton Road etc). Images in the Design and Access statement carefully hide the height of the development behind buildings. This is completely shameful and was obviously done with the intention of mis-leading people. From most vantage points the proposals will look terrible.

6. Most of the commercial ground floor units on the site will never be occupied. The units are similar to those at Dickens Yard which have been empty for years. Further from the town centre they have even less chance of finding tenants. Far better to use these spaces for homes so that the building heights can be reduced.

7. Perceval House is less than 40 years old and an awful lot of embodied energy went into its construction. A Council as concerned about climate change as Ealing's claims to be should not be demolishing it. The far greener course would be to refurbish it.

8. The Council claims it's providing much needed affordable housing through its building unproven commercial new company 'Broadway Living'. Only 14.7% of the new homes will be 'genuinely affordable' according to the Mayor's definition of being let at 35% of the market value. Less than 50% of the units are even nominally 'affordable'. What's more, there will be very few family sized homes. Most of the flats are 1 or 2 bedrooms. Only 7 new homes will have 3 bedrooms.

9. The turning bans at Longfield Avenue mean most traffic will access the development from the North, encouraging traffic to rat-run through residential streets both during construction and after it is finished. Why a Council, so insistent on creating Low Traffic Neighbourhoods elsewhere in the borough, would propose this is a mystery.

10. Servicing arrangements for the both the new homes and the Council offices are totally inadequate. No onsite access to the new homes is to be provided and there will be just one loading bay outside the bollards at the north end of the site. This will be completely insufficient to meet the demand for deliveries, tradespeople, removal vehicles etc to 477 flats. The new development will Inevitably cause illegal parking along Longfield Avenue and Craven Avenue to the rear of the site.

If this scheme is allowed to go ahead, in my opinion, it will have a devastating impact on the centre of Ealing.

Mr Kevin Raftery 27 Regina Terrace West Ealing W13 9HY (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Sun 17 Jan 2021


Ealing's Councillors don't seem to appreciate the widespread sense of fury mounting among their constituents, caused by the Council's habitual disregard for what the vast majority of constituents want. Over 800 well-reasoned objections have already been lodged against proposal 203275FULR3. Will these objections be brushed aside, as the objections to the eight-storey block by Dean Gardens were brushed aside, and like the objections to LTN21 which the Council has unilaterally extended to 12 months against residents' clear wishes?

Proposed Building Four is far too tall for the surrounding area. Anything taller than Dickens Yard would be too tall. Anything taller than the Arc Tower would be even more deleterious to Ealing's environment than the awful Arc Tower itself. Yet the developers, and the Council itself, are proposing a 26-storey building that would forever ruin the attraction of Ealing. Imagine a 26-storey tower built in the centre of Paris; the city's charm would be very seriously damaged. Why do that to Ealing and its residents?

There should be an independent assessment of this planning application as Ealing Council has a conflict of interest.

Government policy requires the application to include a heritage assessment yet none has been included.

I concur with the objections raised by Heritage England and those submitted on 15 October by the Resident's Association of Madeley and Westbury Roads.

The proposal should be refused.

Mrs Jane Stevens 71 Elers Road Ealing W139QB (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 15 Jan 2021

In response to an email notifying me of changes to the architectural features of the proposed redevelopment of Perceval House, I wish to state that my original objections on these pages dated 27 October 2020 remain unchanged.
The change of hue to the terracotta panels does nothing to address the serious concerns that I and so many other residents have about this monstrous overdevelopment.
Given that this minor change "following feedback from stakeholders" has been proposed, when can we expect that the feedback from stakeholders on these pages will be taken on board?
- When can we expect proposed revisions to the overwhelming size, volume and density of development at this scale, which are clearly being rejected by the vast majority of residents?
- When will attention be paid to the provisions in the London Plan, the Local Development Plan and your own local planning restrictions and guidance which exist to preserve our communities, conservation areas, local amenity and heritage?
- When will attention be paid to the wellbeing of Ealing residents, who while currently living in an area with parks, open spaces, largely low rise housing, and historic public buildings, are now facing many proposals which will cause them to feel hemmed in, their views dominated by oversized, ultra high developments such as this one?
- When will the conflict of interest caused by the involvement of the council in this proposed redevelopment as well as in its approval, be addressed?
- When will the designs we are shown of the proposed redevelopment reflect honestly the scale and size of the development planned?

Please consider the weight of all the objections you are receiving and do not change the character of Ealing so drastically, against the wishes of the vast majority of local residents.

Comment submitted date: Tue 27 Oct 2020

The proposed development is far too tall and the density of the housing is of huge concern for a number of reasons, set out below.
Building on this massive scale without the opportunity to understand what went wrong at Grenfell would be utterly negligent. At the very least those responsible for the development need to have a fully independent audit showing that their materials, construction methods and fire evacuation measures are not putting residents at risk.
Building on this scale appears to contravene the London Plan and the council's own local development plan, as well as the guidance available in relation to tall buildings and density of housing. Why? These exist to protect the environment for the residents and communities who live there. Too many households will be crammed together in the centre of Ealing, given the other two extremely large developments there. We know the social and other problems caused by over-dense and over-high developments. The London plan establishes strategic policies to be considered and these include taking account of local character, appropriate density and scale. The proposed scale and density of the development and the consequent obliteration of the local character of Ealing are stark.
It is beyond belief that while the council pays lip service to sustainability and the carbon footprint, it intends to unnecessarily demolish a building which is under 40 years old.
Huge developments like this have a major adverse impact on the surrounding neighbourhood while they are being built. The carbon footprint from the build and the energy consumption is enormous.
The ongoing maintenance of such developments is highly costly. The buildings can superficially look good when new but very soon expensive repairs and maintenance are required eg to lifts, and often not carried out due to the significant on-costs. As they become more difficult to maintain the physical structure itself starts to decay and with it the local community.
There will be a huge increase in traffic consequent on the massive increase in the number of residents. Just limiting parking is not enough. The residents will need to be serviced: there will be online deliveries, taxis, medical visits, transport needs for the disabled etc.
The proposed building will dwarf the Town Hall and the Victorian and Edwardian buildings in the centre. It is ugly and way over size. It will be visible from local parks where currently one can enjoy landscape, trees and a sense of space. It will, in conjunction with the other central developments provide a dense and forbidding shadow over the whole of the centre of Ealing and a feeling of incarceration for the residents. The parks are very well used and very important for mental and physical health, but the forbidding aspect of this development will severely reduce the light and space that human beings need to see and feel, in order to avoid a build up of stress. It will destroy the character of the centre of Ealing which has always had a village type feel.
There are insufficient schools, nurseries, doctors' and dentists' surgeries and other necessary services for a third huge development in central Ealing. It is hard enough to get a doctor's appointment in central Ealing now. Development needs to be approached in a planned, thoughtful and holistic manner. Surgeries are too busy to provide appointments. The local Accident and Emergency department at Ealing is frequently overcrowded and overwhelmed, partly because GP appointments are not easily available. It is not even enough to provide more physical infrastructure of this type, appropriately qualified staff have to be found and new staff trained. As this takes time and has clearly not been planned for, there will inevitably be a long period of pressure on existing community services.
Please consider how much of the housing proposed will help those on low incomes or on the council's housing list. We need to be building the right kind of homes for the mixed community which is Ealing, instead of allowing speculative development in an attempt to cash in on Crossrail, thereby destroying the borough's environment in exchange for massive profit.
This proposal will seriously affect the environment and change the character of Ealing forever. Consequently due to the massive change this will engender, the council has a greater responsibility to consult residents and take into account their views. Local government is meant to be for local people.
This development is in plain sight of various conservation areas, and locally listed heritage buildings. It seriously changes the character of Ealing, which has always been proud of its heritage.
It is a principle of natural justice that you cannot be judge and jury in your own cause. I understand the council owns this land, is acting with the developer and is therefore bringing its own plans to itself as the planning authority. How can this be fair and impartial? It is also open to legal challenge.

Mr Anthony Hawran 17 St. Leonard's Road London W13 8PN (Objects)

Comment submitted date: Fri 15 Jan 2021

The planning application to redevelop the Perceval House site, ref. 203275FULR3 has the telling hallmark of being imposed and propagated by disingenuous venal local rulers. They have small personal mandates, but they want to erect big overbearing and overlooking blocks to show off their supposed virtuous status. As stated in my previous comment, 19th October 2020, housing needs would not be addressed by the battery farm housing death trap towers within the proposed redevelopment complex. At the same time the environment of Ealing would be disrespected and disrupted with a unsympathtic monolithic overbearing Soviet style block complex.

The developer, including the present council, it seems cannot learn from history. High rise developments have been discredited. Grenfell Tower is a recent example of this in Britain. This proposed development seems to emulate developments in the post 2nd World War Soviet Empire of Hitler's one-time ally in the Kremlin, which held sway over Central Europe from the mid 1940s till the end of the 1980s/early 1990s.

Despite the real austerity, hunger and poverty in that region, the local Soviet placemen had vanity projects erected, that did not address genuine housing need, just targets that the rulers could show off about. Examples of this included the Palast der Republik (1973/76-2008), and the postwar Alexanderplatz redevelopment in East Berlin, that has belittled Berlin's original red Town Hall amongst other things. This same belittling would happen to Ealing's Town Hall, if 203275FULR3 application were to be given permission. Another example of this vanity building was the Soviet imposition of the "gift" on Warsaw of the Palace of Science and Culture (1955). The proposed Perceval House redevelopment reeks of this kind of status symbol vanity. Ealing's present rulers, it seems have no time or money to maintain existing facilities, including the present Town Hall, built by the people in the past. However to endear themselves to developers, they seem to have all the time and money in the world, on the back of Ealing's people.

Please reject Planning Application 203275FULR3.

Comment submitted date: Mon 19 Oct 2020

Planning Application 203275FULR3 should be rejected. Cramming so much into a small piece of land seems like a desparate throw of a narcistic autocrat who wants to show off his manhood to the rest of the world at the expense of others. This was a trait that characterised National Socialist Germany and their one time Soviet Socialist allies. The proposed development is adjacent to the listed Town Hall, and it would overshadow it and neighbouring buildings and homes. It is as if Council Fuhrer Julian Bell wants the Perceval House site to be his Wilhelmstrasser chancery. Like in previous totalitarian regimes the present council are the judge and the jury in deciding it's fate. It seems that planning decisions are driven by authoritarian decree and not by logic, reason and ethics.

The height of the proposed development is excessive, not taking into account surrounding buildings and housing. Even Historic England has criticized the planning application for this reason. The shadowing would be excessive. The increased traffic congestion to the surrounding roads would be increased so smug council top dogs, including the present Planning Committee Chairman can feel safe within the confines of their Ealing Kremlin, along Longfield Avenue.

Of the planned 477 flats, within this development, only seven would be three bedroom family sized. Only 14.7% of the flats would have a Lodon Affordable rent. The rest would be studio or one bedroom (44%) and two bedroom (54%) sized soulless rabbit hutches within the death trap tower blocks.

In April 2019, the ruling council clique declared a climate emergency, yet they seem disingenuous in trying to lower carbon (dioxide) emissions. Perceval House is not even 40 years old. It is as if the present council want to show off how virtuous they are meeting targets, so that they can live off another soulless "battery farm type accommodation/housing development" for harvesting council tax. In this dense battery farm development social distancing during an epidemic would not be so easy, especially in communal areas. Fire safety in dense battery faarm type developments is another issue.

The application proposed is excessive for the amount of land it would be on. It is disreputable, disrespectful and unsympathetic to the surrounding areas. Perceval House is not even 40 years old. It would be a systematic degradation of the area. Please reject this planning application - 203275FULR3.

Showing 1-10 of 851|1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10|

an Idox solution