| Topic: | Explanation | |
| Posted by: | Phil Taylor | |
| Date/Time: | 01/09/11 08:59:00 |
| Arthur, You asked for an explanation of an apparent contradiction. Everything I have ever said about Dickens Yard and Arcadia was in the context of these sites being adjacent, in one case pretty much on top of, the Ealing Broadway Crossrail station. Reynard Mills is miles away from significant public transport links and as such is unsuitable for very dense housing. Northfield councillors carefully pointed out that the proposal was twice as dense as recommended in the London Plan for a site that far from public transport. We are not against developing the site. We are against overdeveloping a site that is far from public transport. If you read carefully what I have actually said I think that you will be hard pressed to find me directly endorsing the Dickens Yard development although I have spent some time trying to illuminate all of the issues around it. I did talk about the Arcadia scheme at the public enquiry and did say that it wasn’t terrible. Even SEC hero Sir Peter Hall agrees that densification around Ealing Broadway is desirable and told the Conservative group that he “wouldn’t have any quarrel with the principle of densification in central Ealing”. I was relatively happy with the Arcadia scheme. That is my opinion. I thought that it would bring jobs and homes to our town centre at the cost of having some big buildings next to the station. You Arthur are entitled to your view. Please let me have mine. |