London Borough of Ealing plan to demolish the current Gurnell Leisure Centre, replace it with a new one and build 599 homes in 6 tower blocks up to 17 storeys high on Metropolitan Open Land – this is London’s Green Belt and must be protected. This development is inappropriate and will cause significant harm to the MOL and the surrounding area.
In addition to this, they are proposing to relocate the current BMX track and create a new BMX cycle track on Long Fields meadow by Stockdove Way – this is a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC). The plans will see half the meadow destoyed and once it’s lost we can never get it back.
In both cases, the environmental impact has not been adequately assessed. Please don’t let Ealing Council get away with this.
Please go to our website for information on http://savegurnell.org.uk/how-to-object.html – go to “contact us” to join the mailing list.
Please object to both of these and neighbours to do the same and ask your friends, family members to do the same. You are no restricted to one objection per household – every member can object.
We are tagergeting 1,500 objecteion for Gunrell and curretly have 550 with just a handful of supporters. The BMX track has 330 comments and is currently split 50/50 support/object due to the BMX club rallying support – if you oppose this development please submt your comments and object to this proposal.
The Gurnell Leisure Centre is situated on Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) and forms part of the Brent River Park. The bank of the river is designated as a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation of Borough Importance (SINC) Grade 1. Ealing Council have stated that the leisure centre is getting old and needs to be demolished and rebuilt. They have pledged to do so, and the project to make this happen is already at the proposal stage.
So far, so uncontroversial.
But now add not one, not two, not three… but SIX high rise blocks to accompany the new leisure centre. Six high rise flats that will tower over West Ealing – easily the highest buildings in the vicinity; high rise flats that will forever change the look of the neighbourhood, and trample on a green space SINC. The surrounding fields, playgrounds and residencies will be cast into permanent shadow.
Because of the scale of the proposed development, two approvals will be needed: from Ealing Council’s planning committee, and also from the Greater London Authority (GLA).
The justification Ealing Council are using for this startling proposed change is that the money from the developers will be used to rebuild Gurnell Leisure Centre. But do they really have to approve such a dramatic development to raise the funds needed? And how much money are the developers paying towards the new leisure centre anyway? We are told that Ealing council are still ploughing at least £12.5 million into the cost of renewing Gurnell. And it is likely to be even more than that!
And it gets worse! The developers who were going to build the new leisure centre, as well as construct the two tower blocks that flank it (that is the left part of the development as you look at the mock up) have pulled out of this part of the project. That means at best Ealing will have to deal with two different developers going into one project. At worst the rebuild of the leisure centre, which is the reason all of this was happening in the first place, is at risk of being delayed or not going ahead at all!
It would have been so much easier for Ealing Council if they had just adhered to the concept of maintaining a “sinking fund”. That is, if they had put some money aside each year of the life of the Gurnell Leisure Centre in order to pay for future maintenance and refurbishments. However, they did not do this. And it has been this way over the last 30 years, during Labour and Conservative controlled local administrations. It goes on.
The two blocks that will be adjoining the new leisure centre (and currently have no developer to build them), will be the “affordable housing” part of the development in one block, and Shared Ownership in the other (the definition of “affordable” is still quite nebulous in London. Council houses? Forget it).
The other 4 high rises (that will go up to 17 storeys in height and comprise of 400 units for private sale) are to be constructed by a Malaysian developer. These will likely be marketed to, and snapped up by, foreign investors. And what is the name of this developer, you might be asking yourself?
The lack of concern by the current local administration for issues that have been raised by residents is again something that needs to be mentioned. Residents have been asked to leave scrutiny meetings when finances are to be discussed. Councillors have refused to answer questions during ward forum meetings. Labour candidates have even dodged the issue when they are out canvassing!
Surveys that have been issued asking the public questions about the proposed development have been criticised for the leading style of questioning they adopt. Questions are phrased in a way to make it appear as if the public are supporting this big development, though they might not be aware that they are doing this.
Finally, the design of the refurbished leisure centre itself has pressed ahead with very little consultation of what the public might actually want from their health space. As an example, the new exercise studios, including those used for yoga that could look out upon a panorama of fields and a river instead has a view of the main road!
We see clashes between the residents and the council brewing all through the borough of Ealing. Whether it is in the controversial “Two Towers” development in West Ealing, the horrific plans for Warren Farm or the threat to an Asset of Local Value at Gunnersbury Triangle. It appears the wishes of the existing community are very much an afterthought in the minds of the council. And Green Spaces are very much things that are easy to compromise – for the right price.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.