Planning

Most Local Planning Authorities allow access to planning applications, including all the plans and other documents submitted with the application, and the decision notices on their websites. Ealing seems to be an exception to this - I may be missing something, but I've only managed to get basic details, e.g. this is the only info I can find on the main permission (so much for local democracy!):

Application - P/2004/1764
Location :	LAND AT NORTHALA FIELDS WESTERN AVENUE, DOLPHIN ROAD, UB5 6AH
Ward :	Greenford Broadway
Proposal:	Remodelling of existing landscape to create formal and informal public open space including mounding (by use of imported material), fishing lakes, water features and gardens, sport and play provision, meadows, open air events space, visitors centre, and two car parking areas (with access off "slip road" onto Western Avenue, and access off Kensington Road) (Environmental Impact Assessment Application) (Application for Deemed Consent by London Borough of Ealing) (Revised Application)
Decision, Date of Decision and Sent Date :	Grant With Conditions (17/06/04) [24/06/04]
Application Reference :	P/2004/1764

Conditions and Reasons

Time Limit - Full Permission

Mitti's questions:

- What was the public's opinion about the "contaminated rubble" sourced from different construction/demolition sites
- How was the above mitigated in order to satisfy or calm the general public concern?
- Considering that the design did not consider an ecologic function of the site, was the idea in the end brought in to reduce the concerns in regards with the possible contamination of the materials used as infill?
- the engineering part only talks about the details that are visible as result. Was truly the design and technical detailing about what it can be seen today or it was more comprehensive and detailed than it could be accomplished?
- Considering that the first phase was financed by the infill site, which were the organisations to finance the phase two works? Council, HLF, Government Grants)
- The engineering participation in phase two is not very clear apart from the crib wall installation. Techniker/Peter Brett Assoc. were employed to provide the engineering consultancy by the Landscape Architects. Once this has been accomplished in the first stage were the same companies involved in the second stage? In either of the stages what were the contractual relationship between the designers and the engineering companies?
- How did the engineers influence the design? Were the engineers employed to provide the solution or they were involved in the design stage as well? The later is not confirmed as there is no evidence the two engineering companies taking credit of any involvement. Not in their portfolio, nor in other documents.
- What was the planning involvement in the whole design? Considering the visual impact of the scheme on the surrounding area how did the planning process influence the design? What were the issues they had to mitigate and what was the engineering response to that?
- Could we get hold of a copy of the planning application to see the details and the visual impact assessment and how this impacted the consultation process?

Notes from meeting on 08/02/2013

With thanks to Matt for his action list (below), here is a slightly fuller version of the notes from yesterday:

1) Biased information - we talked about the problem that each organisation/person will be 'selling' their company/themselves and so tend to exaggerate their role in the project. I think many of the articles are written by or based on information from Peter Fink (which is why they all say the same thing). The political statements about Phase 2 are even less likely to be 100% true - we have the two extreme, and opposing, views: the Conservative politicians and FoRM Assoc...

Somehow we need to get the truth - we thought perhaps the steering group may be more objective as they have no professional interest.

2) Allocating marks - I think there was general agreement to a system that involved a base mark with some kind of adjustment from other members of the team. Suggestions included:

• 'secret vote' for team members to give marks?
• average mark from all team members to be added to base mark for each of us?
• maybe an interim assessment of whether each person is doing enough (or more/less than expected)?
• how should we assess everyone's input to the project - do we need to set objectives/expectations to measure against?

All to consider this so that we can agree next week.

3) Site visit -All to put availability for a site visit on the blog so that some or all of us can visit together if possible; if not, we can go separately.

4) Report and presentation - TD to develop template. We also need to start thinking about, and putting together, illustrations, etc. for the report (with credits where necessary)

5) Objectives - All to consider what the objectives were for the Northala project so we can discuss next week.

6) Competition brief - MD to contact Landscape Institute to see if they hold a copy

7) Questions - All to add any more questions by the end of Saturday; KH to then collate these into a single list.

Actions From Meeting 08/02/13

Matt - contact Landscape Institute for copy of competition brief

Everyone - Post all questions on the blog before Sat 9th evening

Kevin - Compile comprehensive list of questions

Tam - Start template for final document

Matts questions;

• Was ecology part of the competition brief?
• In award of the project how important was the ecological benefit compared to the 'fiscal neutral' aspect?
• How successful are the created habitats, and how are they currently managed?

Tam's questions:

• Comfirm site size - generally said to be 18.5ha but Ealing Council website says 27.5ha?  [Ealing Council]
• Competition - What was the competition brief? Other entries?  [Ealing Council]
• Who was involved in winning entry & when? [FoRM Assoc]
• Roles and responsibilities throughout? Were these formally recorded (written down)?  [Ealing, FoRM, all?]
• What were Techniker/Peter Brett Assoc roles? (listed as engineers)  [FoRM]
• How well did the team work together? How was it structured - contractual relationships?  [All]
• Have members of the team worked together on other projects, before or after Northala?  [All]
• Any difficulties? How were these overcome?  [All]
• What was the consultation process? Who was involved? How? How effective was it? What impact did this have on the design & outcomes? [Ealing, FoRM, Consultees/Steering Group members]
• Compromise between amenity use and ecology/biodiversity:   [ecologist]
• How effective is creation of the distinct (and isolated) habitat types?
• Wetland topped up from deep aquifer in periods of low rainfall - not truly sustainable? 
• To what extent have Phase 2 plans been implemented  - what has happened, what hasn't and how have these been funded?  [Ealing, FoRM, LDA?
• LDA taking over from Art2Architecture/Form Assoc. - when, why?  [Ealing, FoRM, LDA]
• How did change of design team work (e.g. design copyright issue)?  [Ealing, FoRM, LDA]
• Did Peter Fink continue to have a design role (for LDA?) after A2A/Form Assoc were sacked? [FoRM (Peter Fink)]
• Where was the funding going to come from for the aspirational Phase 2 - Ealing Council seem to think they would have had some liability but Peter Fink insists not? Was it ever realistic to think another £5m could be found? Did Cascaid produce any report on this (that we could look at)?  [Ealing, FoRM, Cascaid?]
• Who was on the old the Steering Committee (compared to the new 'Steering Board')? [Ealing, Members of Steering Gp] 

Notes from meeting on 01/02/2013

For next week we are going to:

1. Read each other's notes (and continue to work on notes if not already finished)!

2. All think of questions which we need answered, and who (which design team member) might be able to answer.
3. All to try to identify what the objectives of the project were.

We'll pull all of these together at the end of next week.

We agreed the process for contacting people should be:

- quick introductory phone call - say hi, who we are, what we're doing, is it ok to email some questions
- send list of questions
- follow up with phone call to talk through answers.

Cristina is struggling to find anything on EDAW's role as project manager (they've been taken over by AECOM so no info on their website, or at least no website!), so if anyone has any ideas or info for her... Our best plan otherwise was to ask one of the other team members if they have contact details for whoever worked on the project from EDAW when we are speaking to them, and/or send a general email to AECOM, but I don't hold out much hope for the latter.

Does anyone have any other contacts who might be useful in getting to the people we need to talk to?