As planning is decided using particular types of legal rules I am speaking here personally about a local example of a proposal for planning, known as 100 Bollo Lane.
At the time of writing this, the decision has not been made, and some lessons can be learned about the process of how Ealing Council consults residents as well as what it considers important when it makes planning decisions.
Of course we need more housing but the location needs to be planned so that we do not create sets of huge towers in one area meaning that many people in traditional two storey homes, feel enclosed and are overlooked. Better to have more less tall building so that the good look of an area is not destroyed.
With regard to 100 Bollo Lane application Ealing Council did not consult as many people as they should have. Liberal Democrats believe that enough people should be consulted and not by notices on lampposts. I personally have had complaints about the scheme from at least ten streets which is more than the Council appeared to have contacted.
I am personally against the 100 Bollo Lane application because the current use of light industrial was agreed to be appropriate relatively recently by both the Mayor of London and Ealing Council, so it is wrong to change the use for housing when the site has not been marketed for other light industrial uses.
It appears to be an excuse from the land owners and the developers to sell the land for a high value without the Council wanting to get the best value for the land.
Other issues that will come with a tall set of buildings have been seen at the southern end of Bollo Lane including flooding due to a loss of green area and excess railway noise which according to Transport for London is bouncing off some of the newer developments towards homes on Bollo Lane.
Repeating a development at the north of Bollo Lane seems very likely to cause issues for existing residents on other sections of Bollo Lane.
As a Liberal Democrat, I know that quickly agreeing to a scheme that is not good for the area will leave long lasting negative outcomes. Better to wait and allow for time to discuss a more appropriate scheme for the area. That is what Chiswick deserves.