Power Station Madness for Southall

Southall faces the prospect of a Power Station being built in the heart of a residential area. The proposed Power Station will consume 76,000 litres of virgin vegetable oil a day, which could be palm oil, the most destructive and cheapest agrofuel on the planet.

Judging by its record, it is questionable whether Ealing council will give any consideration to the damaging impact of this bio-fuel Power Station on air pollution, traffic, the environment, world hunger and human rights abuses. Be under no illusion, the primary motive behind council decisions when it comes to Southall is revenue-generation, and not resident’s well-being (as it would have you believe).

The decision on the planning application, filed by Blue NG, is expected to be made by the council in a meeting set for 22nd July 2009.

Let’s shake off the lethargy, and speak up against the continuing assault by Ealing on the quality of our environment and on the people of Southall! Please contact your local councillors and ask them to object to the proposal.

Click here for further information and suggested objection letter

Read ‘Steamed up by power station’ article from Ealing Gazette here

Planning application details on Ealing website here and here

Southall Short-changed on Section 106 Funding ??

Any new development will effect the area in which it is built, such as increased traffic flow or economic regeneration for instance. In order to mitigate any negative impact of new developments, councils can enter into a Section 106 agreement (under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended), otherwise known as a ‘planning obligation’, with developers, requiring them to provide contributions to offset negative impacts caused by construction and development.

Examples of contributions range from the provision of affordable homes and new open space to funding of school places or employment training schemes. Developers can be asked to contribute towards the costs of providing community and social infrastructure which arises as a result of a new development taking place.

It should be noted that Section 106 agreements are not to be used as a way for the council to share in the profits from a development or as an inducement offered by a developer to gain planning permission.

A scan of recent council minutes and related documents makes for interesting reading on Ealing councils stance and track record with regard to Section 106 Monies for Southall; at the Southall Area Committee meeting of 27/11/07 Mr Twyman asked if Southall Councillors were consulted about Section 106 spend. The majority replied that they weren’t consulted. At the same meeting Mr Virdee stated that with reference to Section 106 funding, there should be improvements for Southall and that the Framework isn’t tangible or addressing the problems the area faces now.

Here is an extract from the minutes of the Southall Area Committee meeting of 23/02/08:

The Chairman [Councillor Dhindsa] introduced the report and explained that there is £91,200 of money from Section 106 agreements available and outlined the recommended proposals and projects in 2.2, including £40,000 for a Southall Car Park Study, £46,200 for Town Centre Improvements and £5,000 for CPZ and Parking Solutions on Montague Waye. The Chairman went on to express concern that he did no think councillors have been consulted on the £1,659,404 already spent or committed to existing projects.

Questions are also being asked whether £20,000 spent on the ‘Festival Lights’ is effective use of the money or simply a waste. Section 106 money being spent on the Borough Apprenticeship Scheme is also under scrutiny by residents.

It is high time our councillors [Gurcharan Singh (Con), Jagdish Gupta (Con), Jarnail Singh Jandu (Con), Jasbir Anand (Lab), Kamaljit S Dhindsa (Lab), Maninder Kaur Keith (Con), Manjit Singh (Con), Mohammad Aslam (Lab), Rajinder Mann (Lab), Ranjit Dheer (Lab), Swarn Singh Kang (Lab), Tej Ram Bagha (Lab), Tejinder Singh Dhami (Lab), Virendra Sharma (Lab), Zahida Abbas Noori (Lab) ] flexed their elected power to ensure Southall does not continue to be short-changed when it comes to section 106 funding.

Some residents have also expressed a concern that Section 106 monies are being misappropriated, such as the money for Business Incubator Units and the Apprenticeship Scheme. We would argue that it is imperative for the council to be transparent about section 106 monies raised and how it is spent. Click here for the latest summary of section 106 monies for Southall.

At a meeting on 13^th November Cabinet asked council officers to suggest projects to the area committees which would be funded by available section 106 funds. Subsequently, a recent report titled “S106 – update and proposals for the allocation of S106 monies” sets out recommendations for the expenditure of the S106 monies and asks the area committee to comment on these recommendations prior to seeking Cabinet approval for expenditure.

We urge residents to ask their councilors what interest they are taking in this matter, and insist that section 106 money be spent with with care to ensure we can enjoy tangible improvements in our quality of life. We would further urge the council to consult with us the residents, rather than allowing officers to implement proposals dreamt up in isolation.

Question About Phoenix House Planning

Once again it is clear from this proposed development that Southall is being used as a ‘dumping ground. for refugees in the borough. The business centre and library is just a window dressing to make the scheme more acceptable. The Council should be working with the residents, businesses, police and transport authorities in any proposed development of Phoenix House to ensure that features/facilities are built into any new plan which improve the welfare of local residents and enhance the profile of Southall.

Some of the objectives listed in the Southall Town Centre Strategy are:

• Improve the overall accessibility of the town centre to all its local customers, businesses and local residents, particularly by public transport, cycling, walking and for those with disabilities;
• Make walking around the centre a more pleasant, safe and easy experience – day and night;
• Ensure an integrated approach to traffic and parking management, public transport, cycling and walking;
• Reduce traffic congestion and traffic flows within the town centre to make it a pleasant place and help meet local and national traffic reduction targets;
• Provide safe, secure and sufficient car parking distributed across the centre on and off street to enhance the town centre for residents and pedestrians. Car parking could be reduced as public transport improves, consistent with maintaining the centre’s economic vitality;

This proposed development fails to meet these objectives; in addition there are a number of concerns:

• Does the Council agree that Southall is already overcrowded, and that this additional residential accommodation will be used for transferring refugees from other more ‘sensitive’ parts of the borough?
• Was a traffic assessment report carried out to ensure the existing congestion on The Green and King Street and surrounding areas will not be exacerbated by this development?
• Are the flats in the development going to be rented or sold off? If rented, will the Council be using the flats to house people on their waiting lists, refugees and asylum seekers?
• Is there any stipulation as to who can be housed (or purchase) the flats (ie. could we end up in a situation where the new development is a refugee ‘ghetto’)?
• If shops are part of the development, will there be any restrictions on the trade to be allowed (eg nightclub, pub)?
• What facilities/amenities will be provided to cater for the families and their children living in the 149 new flats?
• will the existing library on Osterley Park Road be closed down as a new library / resource centre is being planned in the new development?

Therefore, this planning application should be opposed for the following reasons:

1. for a development of this scale, there is nothing in the plan that improves the welfare and quality of life of local residents
2. the area is already congested with a high volume of human and vehicle traffic. The road system will be unable to cope with the additional traffic generated by this development.
3. there is already an acute lack of car parking spaces in the area and this development would inevitably have an devastating effect on the local residents. The stated figure of 109 parking spaces for 149 residential units is plainly insufficient.
4. there is already enough nuisance/public disorder created by customers of the Tudor Rose club, the Mehfil restaurant and the Tyre and Car business, and the numerous Somali cafes in the locality. These need to be looked at and controlled rather than additional strain being put on the area.
5. this seems to be a purely money making exercise with no regard to the effects on the local community.