Forum Topics

E1 bus route extended to Osterley Tesco

Yesterday I wrote on Pitshanger Area Friends' Facebook Page that some bus routes which terminate outside Ealing Broadway Station were inevitably going to have to be shortened or lengthened, just to reduce the number of buses using the station as a terminus. Currently, buses that terminate outside the station are the 65, 112, 226, 297, E1, E7, E8, E9 and E10 (have I missed any?!). We surely all agree that there is nowhere near enough road space to handle this number.  It was pure coincidence, then, that two E1 drivers told me yesterday that TfL is currently running a risk assessment for the E1 to run from Greenford to Osterley via Ealing Broadway. From Greenford, it will follow its current route to Ealing Broadway Station. It will then turn right onto Uxbridge Road, left into St. Mary's Road and continue along South Ealing Road before turning right onto the Great West Road and terminating at Tesco Osterley. None of this has been publicised as yet; you heard it from me first!      The change is anticipated to take place "in a couple of months, maybe more." It is more than probable that the lengthening of the route, which will bring with it more traffic and the likelihood of more roadworks, will mean that the E1's high frequency will be considerably reduced and therefore become less reliable. On the positive side, it will alleviate the overcrowding outside the station. My guess is that the E9 will be the next route to be amended; if it does it will probably terminate at Greenford Broadway. We shall see. Why do I think this? First, the E9 frequently runs late and often gets turned round at Scotch Common; second, because not only are Pitshanger Lane and Woodfield Road bottlenecks when two buses try to pass each other, but also because I don't think that Eaton Rise, Woodfield Road and Pitshanger Lane require two routes - I base this observation on traffic hold-ups and the small boarding numbers at the 10 or so intermittent stops from Scotch Common to Castlebar Road (I hope that is not a controversial opinion because I do not want to have a debate about it!).

Ben Owen ● 1156d17 Comments ● 1134d

EASEMENT (long use since 1988) upheld by the UTLC Appeal Judge on 27/7/2023

Dr Gillian Reed longtime resident of 42 Wimborne Gardens won her legal Appeal case on all 3 grounds of appeal yesterday at the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) Hearing in Court No.21 at the Royal Courts of Justice in The Strand. Dr Reed's usage of land immediately adjacent to her house for inspection, maintenance and repairs of her north-facing house wall, plinth, drains and gutters, etc since 1988 created an easement recognised in law as against the neighbouring landowner.Please see part of Andrew Skelly's (Dr Reed's barrister) summary note of the proceedings on 27th July 2023 below. The full Judgment in favour of Dr Reed is to follow in September 2023."1. The hearing was before Judge Elizabeth Cooke, sitting in Court 21 of the Royal Courts of Justice.2. There were three grounds of appeal. By an order dated 21st October 2022 the FtT granted permission to appeal on Ground 3.   The Appellant applied for permission to appeal on Grounds 1 and 2.  By an order dated 7th November 2022 the Deputy Chamber President directed that the appeal and the application for permission to appeal on the additional grounds will be determined by the Tribunal at a single hearing.3. The hearing today was thus the combined hearing of the appeal / permission to appealthe order of the FtT dated 15th July 2022.  As a matter of practicality, therefore, theTribunal heard all arguments on all grounds.4. The Grounds were such that if the Appellant succeeded on Ground 1, that would be conclusive and it would not be necessary to consider Grounds 2 or 3.  Likewise, if unsuccessful on Ground 1, but successful on Ground 2, that would be conclusive and it would not be necessary to consider Ground 3.5. The Grounds were as follows:i) Long UserThe FtT erred in law and/or procedure in concluding that the Appellant relied only on the Prescription Act 1832 to put her case, and that the claim was therefore governed only by section 2 of the 1832 Act.  The FtT should have dealt with the claim also on the basis of the doctrine of lost modern grant.  Had the Judge properly done so, he would have held that the right had been established by 2008.  Noting that happened after that – by way of permission or interruption – would have any relevanceii) PermissionThe FtT erred in law and/or in fact in finding that the Appellant had sought and obtained permissioniii) Effect of PermissionThe FtT erred in law and/or in fact in finding that as a result of permission held to have been given in 2010 for a specific purpose, the Applicant’s user for every purpose thereafter remained permissiveRESULT6. The Judge heard argument from Counsel on behalf of the Appellant, and from Mr Outten in person.  At the conclusion of the hearing she explained that it is usual for the Tribunal to reserve judgment.  However, she decided to take the less usual approach of telling the parties her decision immediately, and following up with the written decision in due course.7. The appeal succeeded on Ground 1, and the Judge said that it also succeeds on Grounds 2 and 3 if it was necessary to go that far....."Ealing Planning Department had granted a planning permission to the adjacent landowner that would have obstructed this easement - now this cannot go ahead unchallenged!

Victor Mishiku ● 1177d1 Comments ● 1137d

The Information Commissioner Decisions re. Ealing Council

Two recent ICO Decisions re. Ealing Council referred to:A request for information about two areas of land re. Ealing Council's pre-application advice given to developers in 2019 was REFUSED by the Council. The first area of land was to the north of West Ealing Station, which led to the submission of planning application ref: 202231FUL on 11th June 2020. The applicants being Southern Grove and Thames Valley Housing. The second area was to the south east of the station on land at Hastings Road. This development was being proposed by the A2 Dominion (formerly Acton Housing Association Ltd). A planning application (ref 192864FUL) was submitted on 27th June 2019 (but was not formally validated by the public authority - the submission being considered premature in relation to ongoing discussions).The Council initially cited EIR Regulation 12(5)(f) (voluntary supply) as the reason for its refusal to provide the requsted information. Subsequently, the Council also gave additional reasons for its refusal citing: Regulation 12(4)(e) (internal communications) and also Regulation 12(4)(d) (unfinished material).The Complainant reported the matter to The Information Commissioner.The Information Commissioner's conclusion was that:"The public authority has not persuaded the Commissioner that any of its cited exceptions are engaged, thus she directs that the withheld information be communicated to the complainant. However, it is not to disclose the names and contact details of all persons therein, as this information is outside the scope of the complainant’s request."ICO Decision Ref: Reference: IC-51437-C5Z2Dated: 27th October 2020..........................In the case relating to development at 15A Tring Avenue near Ealing Common, the Complainant had requested Ealing Council to provide a number of different documents. On 9th October 2017, the Complainant wrote to the Council and requested information in the following terms:1. All internal procedure documents detailing how the planning department makes decisions under their delegated powers, in particular regarding residential properties.2. All terms of reference of internal planning department decision making bodies and/or forums.3. All authorities of planning department staff under any delegated powers.4. All documents (including but not limited to emails, instant messages, telephone call notes (and recordings thereof) and manuscript notes) relating to: 1. The original grant of planning permission (redacted); and 2. The variation of condition 5 of that permission’.The Council withheld the e-mails requested citing:  Regulation 13 (third party personal data)However, following the complaint to the The Information Commissioner, the ICO Decision stated:"2. …The Council incorrectly applied the exception to the sender/recipient details of emails sent to and received by the applicant in the planning matter related to the complainant’s request. The Commissioner therefore requires the Council to take the following steps to ensure compliance with the legislation.PROVIDE THE COMPLAINANT WITH THE SENDER/RECIPIENT DETAILS OF EMAILS SENT TO AND RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT.3. The Council must take these steps within 35 calendar days of the date of this decision notice. Failure to comply may result in the Commissioner making written certification of this fact to the High Court pursuant to section 54 of the Act and may be dealt with as a contempt of court. 4. The Commissioner has also found that in handling the complainant’s request, the Council breached regulation 5(1) and 5(2) of the EIR by failing to make environmental information available. The Council also unreasonably and  excessively delayed in providing the information to the complainant. Additionally, the Council breached regulation 11(4) and 11(5) by failing to conduct an internal review within 40 working days."

Victor Mishiku ● 1160d3 Comments ● 1160d