1

SEC 3

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Public Inquiry into the called-in planning application by BE

Broadway BV in relation to land at 9-42 the Broadway, Ealing,

London W5 for:

Redevelopment and demolition of 9-42 The Broadway and 1-4 Haven Place

(retaining No. 9 and the front facades of No. 14 and Nos. 15-16 The Broadway)

and erection of 8 new buildings (ranging from 2 storeys to 18 storeys) to

provide 188 residential units (Use Class C3), 6,667sqm flexible retail

floorspace (Use Class A1/A3), 784sqm flexible retail / leisure floorspace (Use

Class A1/A3/D1/D2), 514sqm bar/nightclub (Use Class A4 / Sui Generis) with

basement car parking, new publically accessible route, associated public

realm and landscaping, residential vehicular access off The Broadway and

primary servicing off Springbridge Road via existing servicing route for 1-8

The Broadway and associated works.

Planning Inspectorate reference: APP/A5270/V/16/3151295

London Borough of Ealing reference: P/2015/3479

Proof of evidence of Nicholas Boys Smith MA MPhil FRSA AoU

on behalf of SAVE EALING’S CENTRE

2

CREATE streets

1. Personal background and introduction

1.1 My name is Nicholas Boys Smith. I am the Director of Create Streets, a social enterprise

which conducts award-winning research into associations between different types of

urban form and building with wellbeing, popularity, density and long term economic

value. I am also a Senior Research Fellow at the University of Buckingham, an

Academician of the Academy of Urbanism, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and a

Fellow of the Legatum Institute. I have been described by the Architects’ Journal as a

“leading figure” on issues to do with the built environment and the work and research of

Create Streets appears frequently in the specialist and news media. It was also cited by

name in the recent UK Government Housing White Paper (p.31).

1.2 I am the author of several studies on issues to do with design, wellbeing, planning and

housing policy. These include Heart in the Right Street which has featured in The

Economist, The FT and The Guardian and elsewhere. I was also a member of both the

Government’s Design Review Panel and the Estate Regeneration Panel chaired by Lord

Heseltine and the Housing Minister. I was a judge of the 2016 Sunday Times British

Homes awards. I have commissioned polling into the popularity of different building

designs with MORI.

1.3 I am currently running or have recently run a range of community engagement, planning

and local government consultation projects across London and beyond. These include

the largest Community Right To Build Order application in UK planning history (at Mount

Pleasant), the Place Champions programme in Northumberland Park, polling into

popularity of different proposals in Oval, Mount Pleasant, Wimbledon and Kingston,

critical friend reviews of urban design in Merton, the Olympic Park, North Kensington and

elsewhere and urban design in Lambeth, Northampton, Bristol, West Hampstead and

elsewhere.

1.4 I am also a Commissioner of Historic England. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not

giving evidence on their behalf but on behalf of Save Ealing’s Centre (“SEC”).

2. Executive summary

2.1. National and local policy value the preservation of local character and heritage. This is

rational. There is strong evidence that people like living somewhere with a ‘sense of

3

place’, that architecture that references a local neighbourhood in style, form and mass is

a key part of this and that liking the look of and sense of place inherent in your

neighbourhood is associated with higher levels of happiness and mental health. A

summary character analysis shows how this development will badly undermine this

strong sense of place.

2.2. So-called ‘active’ facades or ‘walking architecture’ with ‘narrow fronts, many doors’ and

a reasonable degree of detailing and ornamentation are associated with better

functioning streets and with better neighbourhood interaction. This proposal makes the

façade less active and is therefore not to be welcomed.

2.3. The design is premised on a super-density, complex and highly engineered built form.

This has been done to maximise value but comes with very material disadvantages for

residents in terms of wellbeing, social relations, childhood development, stress and fear

of crime. Those living in flats in high rise and large complex buildings typified by lifts and

corridors often know fewer of their neighbours, are more stressed and behave less pro-

socially themselves. Problems seem to be greatest for the less well off, those with

children and those who use these types of homes as permanent residences. Some of

these contradict overall healthy NPPF planning aims and some specific planning

policies of the Ealing Plan.

2.4. Current and future high running costs of such a complex super-density development will

in the long term probably be associated with a reduction in levels of affordable housing.

2.5. The architectural description of the buildings contains statements that are simply

historically or typologically incorrect. For example, as a mere statement of art-historical

fact it is not ‘classically defined’ as is asserted. This matters because the proposal is in

fact rather mundane and very similar to many other developments by the same

architects.

2.6. The proposals therefore, whilst being arguably in strict compliance with individual

policies within the NPPF and Ealing Policy documents, is contrary to the overall aims

and spirit of these documents and policies.

2.7. Specifically the proposals would appear to be contrary to the underlying intent of NPPF:

paragraphs 17 and 134, policies 69 and 70; of London Plan Policies 7.8 and 7.9; and

Ealing DPD Policies: 1.1(h), 1.1(e) 1.1 (j) , 2.5, 7B, E7.B.6, 7C, E7.4.2, E7.4.4, and 7.4.

4

3. National and local policy value the preservation of local character and

heritage. This is rational. There is strong evidence that people like living

somewhere with a ‘sense of place’, that architecture that references a local

neighbourhood in style, form and mass is a key part of this and that liking

the look of and sense of place inherent in your neighbourhood is

associated with higher levels of happiness and mental health. A summary

character analysis shows how this development will badly undermine this

strong sense of place.

3.1 Two of the twelve core planning principles set out at paragraph 17 of the National

Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) are that developments should;

• ‘take account of the different roles and character of different areas, promoting the

vitality of our main urban areas….[and]

• conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, so that they

can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of this and future

generations.’

Furthermore, the NPPF paragraph 134 states that ‘where a proposed development will

lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset,

local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the

substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that

outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply.’

3.2 London and Ealing Local Policy also requires that the character and appearance of a

Conservation Area and the setting of adjoining heritage assets should be preserved.

This is set out in policies 7.8 and 7.9 of the London Plan 2011, policy 1.1(h) of Ealing’s

adopted Development (or Core) Strategy 2012, Local Variation policy 7.4 and policy 7C

of the Development Management DPD 2013.

3.3 Ealing Development Management DPD Policy E7.B.6 says that ‘Positive visual impact is

an impact on neighbouring development that is attractive, and that complements its

character and value,’ and that ‘All development must have regard for visual impact.’

3.4 The NNPF, the London Plan and the Ealing Plan rightly stress the importance of the

character of a conservation area and of the visual impact of a development on residents’

state of mind. A wide range of evidence strongly supports the conclusion that most of us

5

crave a ‘sense of place’ in new developments. For example, research we conducted in 2014

based on community engagement participants over 15 years found that that longing that a

development should be ‘from here’ not ‘from anywhere’ was (though differently expressed in

different places) remarkably universal. Between 62 and 92% had a desire for a strong

sense of place and neighbourhood. 84% wished to respect historic form, style and

materials. Only 28% had a desire for homogeneous architecture as typified by this

scheme.1

3.5 What does sense of place mean? One of the key elements for most people would

appear to be architecture that might be termed a more locally and historically referenced

style. In every survey of UK preferences that we have conducted or have been able to

find, there is either a strong, very strong or overwhelming preference for buildings that fit

in with their surroundings rather than buildings that represent the latest architectural

style or development (‘a sense of time’). Below we briefly set out some, though by no

means all, of this evidence.2 At least five pieces of recent research have used selected

visual material to assess architectural preferences

▪ Research for a public affairs company (BMRB) in 1998;

▪ CABE research in 2002;

▪ CABE research in 2005;

▪ YouGov research carried out for Robert Adam in 2005; and

▪ Ipsos-MORI research carried out for Create Streets in 2015.

3.6 The 1998 research used a wide range of visual information. 829 interviewees were

shown 6 cards with different types of houses grouped according to categories drawn

from six discussion groups. Two of these were specifically non-traditional and attracted

1.5% (predominantly glass) and 3% (mainstream modern with natural materials) of the

sample. This indicated that 4.5% of the sample would choose a house of what was

termed ‘a mainstream modern design’. The development at 9-42 Ealing Broadway

would probably fall under this category.

3.7 The 2002 research by CABE indicated that only 3% of the sample would prefer to live in

houses or flats that were examples of recent mainstream modern architecture. In some

2005 research published by CABE, with a weighting towards the better off and London-

residents, 20% of the sample favoured explicitly modern design. Also in 2005, a YouGov

survey sought to determine whether the British public prefers traditional or contemporary

buildings for non-residential buildings, 77% of respondents who selected a design, from

1 See Prince’s Foundation (2014), What People Want. 2 More is available in section 9.8 of Boys Smith, N. (2016), Heart in the Right Street.

6

a choice of 4, chose traditional architecture over contemporary styles. Only 23% chose

contemporary buildings.

Figure i – Stylistic preference for commercial buildings was 77% (2 and 3) vs. 23% (1 and 4)

3.8 The most recent evidence is from an Ipsos-MORI poll commissioned by Create Streets

in 2015. It asked respondents if they supported the building of new homes on brownfield

land near where they lived in principle. The poll found that 64% of adults supported the

building of new homes locally on brownfield land. 14% opposed it. Respondents were

then shown five photos illustrating different types of housing. For each, they were asked

if they would support or oppose the building of 10 similar style homes in their local area.

The most conventional in form, style and building materials won 75% and 73% support.

Less conventional, more innovative homes won 23% and 34% support. Popular design

can clearly very materially change support few new homes. Among the 14% who

opposed building ‘in principle’, half changed their mind for the most popular design

option.3

3.9 Pricing data corroborates this polling. The Halifax house price data series shows that

the prices of ‘traditional’ pre-1919 homes in a ‘conventional’ street format in the UK have

risen 54% faster since 1983 than their post 1960s equivalents.4 This is even more

marked in high growth areas such as London. ‘Traditional’ pre-1919 homes in a

‘conventional’ street format in London have risen by 1284% in price since 1983 (figure

xvi). Their more modern contemporaries have risen by half as much. Older homes are

3 Ipsos-MORI interviewed 1,000 adults aged 15+ across Britain, face-to-face, in-home in May 2015. Data is weighted to the known population profile. www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3586/Design-influences-public-support-for-new-build-homes.aspx 4 www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media1/economic_insight/halifax_house_price_index_page.asp. Accessed December 2013.

7

worth 50-70% more as well.5 Meanwhile, Savills research shows how historic parts of

London in well-connected high-density terraced streets and squares are more valuable,

other things being equal, than areas which are not.6 Some 2005 analysis by Nationwide

calculated that the premium paid for living in a pre-1900 property compared to a 1945-

1959 property ranged from 8% to 34%. By contrast, properties built in the 60s and 70s

sold at a discount to the post war price. New builds sold at a 12% premium.7

3.10 Multiple sources of evidence from community engagement in London over the last ten

years support this. Proposing more conventionally conceived and designed housing is

nearly always more popular with the general public – sometimes spectacularly so.8

3.11 This matters because how much we like where we live and we work, shop and spend

has a measurable and predictable impact on our overall happiness, levels of stress and

wellbeing. Environmental psychologists have shown that alongside green space and soft

edges we enjoy gentle surprises and pleasant memories.9 We dislike sharp edges,

darkness, sudden loud noises.10 The strong preferences that most of us show for a more

locationally and historically-referenced architecture is therefore psychologically credible,

even sensible. We choose our homes and experience the world around us emotionally

as well as intellectually.11 This is why Walt Disney built Main Street in Disneyland to look

like an idealised American small town, in which visitors can relax lulled by the reassuring

historic references of the streetscape. What places look like, and whether we like them

or not, does affect our mood and our behaviour. It is not just that; visitors to Main Street,

Disneyland have been shown to be more friendly and forgiving in mood than they would

usually be.

3.12 In a series of studies, Yodan Rofé has run feeling surveys on how people feel in certain

parts of a neighbourhood. Respondents are asked to rate whether they feel very good,

good, bad or very bad in certain places. The results are that people felt better in the

types of place with more greenery, more complicated elevations and a more

conventional form of architecture and urban form. There is remarkable predictability of

response. Location alone, as opposed to social profile or individual tendencies, predicted

5 www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/media1/economic_insight/halifax_house_price_index_page.asp. Accessed December 2013. 6 Savills Research, (2010), Development layout. 7 Available at www.regenerate.co.uk/House%20prices_what_adds_value.pdf Accessed January 2016. 8 See Boys Smith N. (2016), A Direct Planning Revolution for London?, pp.7-10. 9 Walker, R, Skowronsiki, J., Thompson, C. (2003), ‘Life is Pleasant – and Memory helps to keep it that way!’, Review of General Psychology, 7, No2, pp.203-10. 10 Kahneman, D. (2009), Well-Being: the foundations of hedonic psychology. Montgomery, C. (2013), Happy City, p.30. 11 See Robinson, S, & Pallasmaa, J. (2015), The Mind in Architecture. On the role of emotion in choosing homes see RIBA (2012), The way we live now, pp.4-5, pp.10-12.

8

69% of responses. Personal preferences or background coloured responses but did not

drive them.12

Figure ii – Only location in a neighbourhood characterised by ‘bad feeling’ responses

which attracted ‘very good’ feelings (left) & type of house that attracted the most positive

responses (right)

3.13 The potential importance of the beauty of urban areas on health rather than just natural

scenery is also starting to emerge from a growing list of meta data studies. In one

important recent British project, researchers at the University of Warwick have taken

advantage of the power of crowd-sourcing to gauge 1.5 million ratings of the

‘scenicness’ (sic) of 212,000 pictures. These findings were then compared to self-

reported health from the 2011 census. Importantly they found that the ‘differences in

reports of health can be better explained by the ‘scenicness’ of the local environment

than by measurements of greenspace.’13 One of the researchers commented;

‘Our results suggest that the beauty of our everyday environment might have more

practical importance than was previously believed. In order to ensure the wellbeing of

local inhabitants, urban planners and policymakers might find it valuable to consider the

aesthetics of the environment when embarking upon large projects to build new parks,

housing developments or highways.’14

3.14 This measurable emotional attachment to beautiful places would appear to have

consequences. A 2011 survey of 27,000 respondents in ten US cities found stronger

correlations between a place’s physical beauty and people’s satisfaction with their

communities than any other attributes. It had, for example, a correlation of 0.560 with

overall place happiness, 0.534 with city satisfaction and 0.510 on recommending a city

as a place to live for family and friends. Factors such as ‘overall economic security’

12 Rofè, Y. (2010), ‘Mapping the sense of well-being in a neighbourhood: survey technique, and analysis of agreement and variation’, Planum 13 Seresinhe, C. I. et al. (2015) ‘Quantifying the Impact of Scenic Environments on Health’. Sci. Rep. 5, 16899; doi: 10.1038/srep16899. 14 Daily Telegraph, 28 December 2015, ‘Beautiful urban architecture boosts health as much as green spaces.’

9

came nowhere close.15 A 2008-2010 Gallup survey of 43,000 people in 26 cities agreed.

It found that residents’ ratings of the aesthetic attraction of their cities and green spaces

correlated significantly with residents’ attachment to their city. This is turn correlated with

GDP growth. In this survey, aesthetic attraction to their city came third in the pecking

order behind ‘Social Offerings’ (what there was to do) and ‘Openness’ (perception of

openness to different types of resident) as a predictor of attachment. However, it still

ranked above education, basic services or safety.16 A third study has also found that a

perception of beauty is significantly associated with community satisfaction and

significantly more important than individual demographic characteristics.17 Finally, a less

exhaustive 2015 survey by MORI also found indicative associations between levels of

perceived beauty in residential areas and both physical and mental health (though it is

not clear if this survey was fully controlled).18

3.15 People aren’t just saying this. They mean it and are prepared to pay for places they find

have a stronger sense of place and are more beautiful. A substantive and important

recent study be Gabriel Ahlfeldt, Nancy Holman, and Nicolai Wendland

examined the effects of British conservation area designation on English house

prices by analysing 1,088,446 house sales between 1995 and 2010.19 The

authors combined a quantitative approach based on hedonic regression and a

qualitative one based on interviews. The quantitative measures mainly focused

on how distance from conservation areas affected the prices of the properties

which lay within it. The interview questions focused on more ‘volatile’ concepts

such as place-based identity and community cohesion. Outcomes suggest that

there was a price premium of about 23.1 per cent for properties within

designated conservation areas and of about 16.5 per cent in areas prior to their

designation. In other words, the certainty (or near certainty) that the

characteristics of an area would be protected added about 40 per cent to the

perceived value of the conservation area. People value not just buying the

current attributes of an area but the expected long run set of attributes. In the

associated interviews, strong values were attached by all respondents (whether

15 Leyden, K. et al (2011), ‘Understanding the Pursuit of Happiness in Ten Major Cities’, Urban Affairs Review, vol. 47, pp.861-888. 16 Soul of the Community Project, (2010), Soul of the Community 2010 Overall Findings, p.9. Available at www.knightfoundation.org/sotc/overall-findings/ 17 Florida R et al, (2011), ‘Beautiful places: the role of perceived aesthetic satisfaction in community satisfaction’, Regional Studies, pp. 33-48. Florida R., (2008), Who’s your city, p. 163-5, pp. 314-5. 18 Harvey A. & Julian C. (2015), A Community Right to Beauty, p.13. 19 Ahlfeldt, G., Holman, N. and Wendland, N., (2012), ‘An assessment of the effects of conservation areas on value’, Available

at https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/docs/research/assessment-ca-value.pdf

10

‘deprived’ or ‘not deprived’) to a range of issues including distinctiveness, and

attractiveness.20 From the evidence to date on popularity, environmental psychology

and ‘scenicness’, health and emotions, we conclude that architecture and perceptions of

beauty really do matter to a ‘sense of place’, happiness and wellbeing. Most people

know what they like, actively look for it and will pay more for it. They also seem to be

happier walking through and living in a city or neighbourhood which they aesthetically

like. As advancing neuroscience begins to teach us about the importance of emotional

as well as conscious responses this should not be a surprise.

Typical Urban Characteristics

Existing South Facing

New Proposals South Facing

Existing East Facing

New Proposals

East Facing

Height of street façade

Varied from one storey to four storeys

From two to six storeys (19m)

Varied from one storey

entrances to four storeys

From six to nine storey

storeys (34m)

Materials Large variety (red brick,

stucco, stock brick, rubbed brick, pitched slate roofs,

glass)

Limited variety. Predominant glass with red

and stock bricks

Variety (red brick, stucco, stock brick,

tiled)

Limited variety.

Predominant glass with red and

stock bricks

Fenestration Large variety (Edwardian,

Victorian, Pre-Victorian sashes,

Edwardian baroque, bay

windows, dormer

windows)

Near uniform series of

fenestration treatments

Variety (Edwardian

and Victorian sashes, dormer

windows)

Near uniform series of

fenestration treatments

Street Proportions

(approx. height to width ratio)

From 0.5 to 0.9 From 0.6 to 1.3 From 0.3 to 1.2

From 2.2 to 3.1

Plot or bay width Very varied from 5m to 17m

Two widths (eight at 9m, six

at 6.5m)

Varied from 4m to 10m

Four widths at 7m and

three at 4m Window to wall

ratios Very varied

from very low to high

Uniform: at just over 60% window

Varied from very low to

medium

3 just >70% window; 4 just >80% window

Sense of historic place

High (though needs some

care and attention)

Very low (one retained building & two retained

facades)

Medium (though needs

some care and attention)

None

Degree of High & very Low (largely Medium and Low to

20 ‘Deprived’ and ‘Non-deprived’ were taken from the 2007 Indices of Multiple Deprivation..

11

architectural ornament

varied. Range of cornices,

quoins, keystones etc

where existing façade is retained)

above all varied

minimal

Table i - Urban and architectural features of status quo and proposed development along the

street frontages

3.16 This is why it matters that the current proposals don’t achieve a strong sense of place or

(in some important characteristics) meet the type of development which most non-

designers actually visually like. In Table i I set out some of the key visual characteristics

of Ealing Town centre laying particular stress on those which define the urban

experience and which are likely to be popular with most members of the public based on

our wider polling. We also set out the degree to which the present extant façade and the

development proposals do (or don’t) meet these criteria. In some important ways

(notably the increased variation of the south facing façades onto Ealing Broadway) the

plans as revised in January 2016 are an improvement. However, the complete

demolition of eleven buildings of such enjoyably varied character all but eradicates any

possible strong sense of place for inhabitants of Ealing. Nor does it provide good

enough replacements to the public eye with a sufficient sense of place.

3.17 Ealing Town Centre is characterised by its variety and, as a largely Victorian suburb, by

the richness and textured ornamentation on many buildings. The earlier and shorter

early Victorian or late Georgian buildings are typically a little plainer but they bring their

own visual complexity to the streetscape by their range of details and variable bay

widths. The taller (typically three to five storey) Victorian and Edwardian buildings,

however, are particularly richly textured and ornamented. The scheme’s own Design

and Access Statement recognises this when it talks of the ‘materiality and detailing’ of

existing buildings being ‘representative of a particular Ealing vernacular which the

proposals are designed to complement.’ (DAS p.23) Unfortunately as the Design and

Access Statement’s own descriptions of existing medium rise buildings makes clear the

new proposed street fronts just don’t have comparable qualities of place, ornamentation

and texture. To take a few examples;

• ‘Nos. 64-71 The Broadway are an impressive four storey Edwardian terrace.

Prominent gables punctuate the skyline, whilst the vertical stone detailing stands out

against the more typical horizontal banding of other Edwardian buildings in the

Conservation Area.’ (DAS p.24)

• Much of the new proposed street façade is at a similar height. However, not only are

there no ‘prominent gables’ punctuating the skyline, nor any ‘vertical stone detailing

12

which stands out’ nor are their equivalently detailed different or similarly high quality

design elements.

Figure iii – Comparison of level of detailing of No 64-71 The Broadway to new proposals

• ‘5 The Townhouse: The Townhouse pub was completed in 1891, and underwent a

conversion to residential apartments in 2012. Striking detailing and contrasting stone

cornices create a very distinctive corner building’. (DAS p.24)

• The characteristics of the Townhouse pub are not echoed in the proposals. There is

little or no detailing in the proposed scheme, let alone ‘striking detailing.’ There are

no cornices, let alone contrasting stone cornices. There is use of contrasting brick

colours in alternate buildings but this is crude and cheap in comparison to existing

buildings. Nor are the new buildings distinctive.

Figure iv – Comparison of level of detailing of 5 The Townhouse to new proposals

• The Grade II listed building currently occupied by Natwest, which has ‘French Gothic

detail,’ a ‘tower,’ and Kentish ragstone. (DAS p.24)

• The new development does not contain French Gothic detail or Kentish ragstone.

Nor does it have equivalently detailed different or similarly high quality design

elements or materials. Whilst there is a ‘tower,’ as in a tall building, it is not a tower

in the same sense.

13

Figure v – Natwest Bank building opposite

• 7 Sandringham Parade is described in the DAS in these terms: ‘Reflecting many of

its contemporary buildings within the Conservation Area, the Parade has a strongly

articulated roofline and distinguished facade patterns, defined by stone mouldings

and string courses. The corner feature as the building turns down Bond Street, and

the ironwork arcade are particularly interesting.’ (DAS p.25)

• The new proposals do not have a strongly articulated roofline, distinguished façade

patters defined by stone mouldings and string courses. There is no comparable

corner feature or ironwork arcade. Nor are the different but equivalently ornamented

or rich details.

Figure vi – 7 Sandringham Place

• ‘The Edwardian terrace found at nos. 14 - 36 New Broadway is locally listed.

Projecting and recessed elements with broken stone pediments add richness to the

facade. Pointed gables define the roof line, whilst grouped sash windows and

decorative elements give the building a strong vertical emphasis and rhythm.’ (DAS

p.25)

14

Figure vii – 7 Edwardian Terrace, New Broadway

• There are no projecting or recessed elements in the new proposals. There are no

broken stone pediments to add richness (or indeed broken stone pediments to add

anything else.) There are no pointed gables to define the roof line. There are no

sash windows or decorative elements. Nor are there similar elements which could

add visual richness differently.

• The existing building, No. 35, is described as a ‘3 storey high corner building in red

brick with stone detailing and steeply pitched slate clad mansard roof’ (p.35 of DAS

Addendum)

• There is no stone detailing nor steeply pitched slate clad mansard roof on the new

development. Nor are their equivalently rich details.

Figure viii – No. 35 The Broadway

15

• Around the new proposal, there are a number of distinctive streets. The taller

buildings particularly are characterised by ornamentation, above all around windows.

Bond Street for example has distinctive white striped window frames and gables.

These are ostensible referenced in the replacement to 35 Broadway but very crudely

and in a fashion that is overwhelmed by the repetitive ‘spreadsheet architecture’ of

the monotonous accompanying buildings.

Figure ix – Bond Street window frames compared to No. 35 The Broadway

• The west facing side of High Street has ornamented bay windows. The windows on

the proposed development are not ornamented. There are no bay or oriel windows.

Figure x – High Street windows

• It is clear therefore that much of what is highlighted as being important for the

character of the Ealing by the applicant themselves is simply absent from these

proposals. Rather than reflecting the area, near homogeneity replaces the

heterogeneous aspects of the surrounding buildings. Variety is reduced to alternate

brick colours; the building materials are homogenous and repetitive; the windows

are large with no ornamentation

16

• This variety and richness does not merely contribute to the character of the area.

These elements, in large part, are the character of the area. The new development

largely denies them.

• The right approach is not necessarily always to replicate these features precisely.

But, the character of which these features are a key part is integral to the varied

architectural history and nature of Ealing Town Centre. The combination of

sweeping it away wholesale, whilst replacing it with a new design that has neither

similar nor equivalent design details, cannot be remotely seen to be respecting the

sense of place or to have a positive impact on the local character. By its near-tabula

rasa approach this proposal is inherently and profoundly flawed.

3.18 In summary, the proposed design does not meet many of the characteristics of central

Ealing or that many residents are likely to find attractive – above all the variety of height,

pattern, material, fenestration, sense of place and urban texture. As the GLA planning

report (para 45) puts it, the development ‘lacks a variety in character and the overlay of

history which is apparent in the current street frontage, which is very typical of a London

High Street.’ In terms of the policies set out in paragraphs 3.1 to 3.3 a more infill

approach tactically replacing some buildings whilst adding greater volume in the middle

of the block would better preserve the sense of place whilst also adding greater value

and density. While it is true that many of the facades could do with some care and

sensitive attention, this is a failure of the current owner rather than any inherent failure in

the existing buildings. The lack of care and attention could be seen to be due to the

mismanagement of the town centre in previous decades. To repeat these mistakes, and

further diminish the character of the buildings, would not seem in accordance to Ealing’s

policies or the evidence of what makes for happy, thriving and successful places.

17

Figure xi – The proposed scheme: is this a historic town centre enjoying

conservation area status? If so, what is the point of conservation areas to preserve a

sense of place?

3.19 The sense of place of the Broadway will be fundamentally and irredeemably changed

from one of ornate variety in a pattern to one of series of blocks and smooth modernist

facades. This is simply not what most of the people who live in or make day-to-day use

of a high street want to see for their historic town centres. It existentially contradicts the

concept of a conservation area or historic town centre as understood in normal spoken

English.

4. So-called ‘active’ facades or ‘walking architecture’ with ‘narrow fronts,

many doors’ and a reasonable degree of detailing and ornamentation are

associated with better functioning streets and with better neighbourhood

interaction. This proposal makes the façade less active and is therefore not

to be welcomed

4.1 Ealing Development Management DPD policy E7.4.2 states that ‘Street sequence is the

spacing and massing of buildings in relation to the street. The sequence of existing

street frontages is often regular or deliberately formed and this may be essential to the

character of an area.’

18

4.2 Paragraph E7.4.4 states that ‘Scale is more than mass or height and relates particularly

to the treatment of these attributes within the design as a whole... development

proposals should demonstrate how they respond to the scale of their surroundings.

4.3 Policy ‘7.4 Ealing Local Variation - Local Character’ of says that Development in Ealing’s

existing built areas should complement their:

a) street sequence

b) building pattern

c) scale

d) materials

e) detailing.

4.4 It would not be fair to say that this proposal makes for a completely inactive façade.

However, by dramatically decreasing the amount of variety (as set out in paragraphs

3.16 to 3.19) and level of ornament this proposal not only dramatically reduces the

sense of place. It also makes for a less successfully active and visually interesting

façade. This is in contradiction to the policies set out in paragraphs 4.1 to 4.3. Even

where heritage buildings are being kept (for example, at No.9 The Broadway), the

proposed treatment of the ground floor makes them far less effective as walking

architecture with a range of shopfronts reduced to glass panels– as in figure xii. The

reduced ornamentation and detailing outlined in paragraphs 3.16 to 319 further reduces

the variation and visual interest.

Fig xii - From more active to less active ground floor façades at No. 9, The Broadway

19

Similarly, while the existing built form could be described as variety in some pattern the

new proposals would be better described as a pattern with a very small amount of

variety. The amount of visual interest is starkly reduced. This is contrary to policy 7B of

the LB Ealing Development Management DPD which states that ‘New development

must achieve a high standard of amenity for users and for adjacent uses by ensuring; a)

high quality architecture and that ‘External treatments, fittings and materials must

complement the building and context and must not impair the visual amenity of

surrounding uses.’

Figure xiii– From walking architecture to driving architecture on Ealing Broadway

4.5 Ealing Core Strategy E7.4.2 is quite right to worry about the sequence of existing street

frontages. In 1961 the American urbanist Jane Jacobs argued that busy street facades

with multiple uses, openings, variety and forms would attract more activity and

encourage the sort of neighbourly interactions that both strengthen social ties but also

provide an increased level of natural surveillance and mutual support (all things we

know to be well associated with higher wellbeing).21 Subsequent research has fully

justified Jacob’s theories which set out the importance of ‘walking architecture.’ The

Danish architect and urbanist, Professor Jan Gehl, has conducted the best know studies

and concluded that the ‘treatment of the city’s edges, particularly the lower floors of

buildings, has a decisive influence on life in city space.’22 The evidence certainly seems

unambiguous that active interesting facades promote street life, neighbourliness

and even enhanced social support and (in some cases) better physical health. In one

Copenhagen study, two very different types of façade were compared. The first, the

active façade, featured ‘varied facades with many doors, visual contact between outside

and inside and various functions.’ The second, the more passive façade, was composed

of ‘uniform facades with few doors, blind or no windows and few or no functions.’ Gehl’s

team then compared the number of people passing, their speed and the number of

people who stopped or turned their heads on a series of summer days and autumn

evenings. They found that:

21 Jacobs, J. (1961), The Death and Life of Great American Cities. 22 Gehl J., (2010), Cities for People, p.75.

20

▪ Pedestrian traffic was 13% slower along the interesting facades;

▪ 75% of people turned their heads along the interesting facades compared to only

21% along the less interesting facades; and

▪ 25% of pedestrians stopped in front of the interesting facades compared to only 1%

in front of the sterile facades.

In aggregate Gehl’s team calculated that there was around seven times as much activity

on front of the active facades as the passive. Other studies in Madrid, Melbourne and

Stockholm had similar findings.23

4.6 It isn’t just that people stop more. Sterile ‘edges’ have actually been proven to impact

levels of sociability and helpful behaviour – all meaningfully correlated with wellbeing. A

recent experiment led by Charles Montgomery in Seattle selected two facades in the

same neighbourhood. One was highly ‘active’ with ‘a high concentration of small

businesses, opportunities for pedestrians and a high level of visual interest.’ The other,

a ‘block-long blank warehouse wall was highly ‘inactive.’ Volunteers posed as lost

tourists at both locations. They stood on the pavement, looking confused and with an

open map. The ‘lost tourists’ did not approach anyone. They waited for random passers-

by to offer help.

‘The results were remarkable. Pedestrians at the active façade site were nearly five

times more likely to offer assistance than at the inactive façade site: 10% of passers-

by offered assistance at the active site versus 2.2% at the inactive site. Of those who

helped, seven times as many at the active site offered to let our ‘tourist’ use their

phone (7% versus 1%). Four times as many offered to actually lead our tourist to

their destination (4% vs 1%).’24

Figure xiv– Active and inactive facades led to different behaviour from pedestrian behaviour

23 Gehl, J. (2006), ‘Close encounters with buildings’, Urban Design International, no.1, pp. 29-47. 24 Edible Urbanism Project, Happy Seattle, www.thehappycity.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Editable-Urbanism-Report.pdf In addition to these findings, people at the active façade reported a significantly higher level of trust in strangers (5.1 vs. 4.8 out of 10), walked more slowly and lingered more.

© Happy City

©Happy City

21

4.7 A parallel point is true in residential streets. One key determinant of social interaction

has been found to be the presence (or absence) of modest front gardens. One study, in

Melbourne, compared levels of activity over entire days on 17 residential streets, some

with and some without front yards. The most activity (69%) very clearly took place in

front of the houses with front yards or gardens. It was by these types of houses that

neighbours stopped to chat or children played. However, front gardens which were too

small to sit in had less of an impact.25 A series of Gehl’s studies elsewhere back this up.

A study of 12 Canadian residential streets found that 89% of street life was carried out

‘in or near the semi-private edge zone.’ A 1980 study of 1970s social housing in

Copenhagen found, found that 35% more people used the outdoor areas of a block with

‘semi-private forecourts’ than did the outdoor areas of one without. Another 1980s study,

also in Copenhagen but this time of two parallel Copenhagen streets (one with and one

without modest front gardens), saw 21 times as much activity in the street with front

yards as the one without.26 The semi-public front gardens of streets don’t just encourage

neighbourliness in a safe and controlled way. They also encourage a sense of

ownership. One excellent case study was that of Diggs Town in Norfolk, Virginia into the

use of what the researchers termed ‘Traditional Neighbourhood Design.’ They found

that placing short white metal fences (approx 75cm tall) around properties allowed and

encouraged residents to manage and care for their own property, giving them a sense of

ownership and a ‘safe space’. They went on to argue that the movement away from

traditional design post war had destroyed the distinction between public and private

space, and that ‘as a result residents lost a critical venue for social exchange.’ Modern

design, intended to be more efficient at housing large numbers of people, has

contributed significantly to the decline in social outcomes.27

4.8 A fascinating American longitudinal study of elderly Hispanics showed that the impact of

these greater levels of ownership and communal interaction are not just ephemeral.

Extra activity in this type of chosen and controllable fashion has real impact on levels of

social support experienced by older people. By contrast elderly residents in

neighbourhoods with ground floor parking in the building or no or very small front yards

did not just experience lower levels of social support. They were also measurable less

25 Cited in Gehl J., (2010), Cities for People, pp. 82-3. 26 Gehl, J.(1986), ‘”Soft Edges” in Residential Streets’, Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research 3, pp. 89-102. 27 Bothwell, Gindroz and Lang (1998): ‘Restoring community through traditional neighbourhood design: a case study of diggs town public housing’, Housing Policy Debate, pp. 89-114. Halpern, D. et al (2015), Promoting Positive Outcomes: How the physical and social environment can affect behaviour in Hillington Square, p.20.

22

healthy after 24 months than those who lived in more welcoming physical

environments.28

4.9 All this activity has another and crucial consequence. This type of ‘busy’, high-density

and active façade is associated with lower crime. Higher ground level densities of both

dwellings and people reduce risk of crime. Some of the most statistically sophisticated

and empirically far-reaching recent research looking at links between crime levels with

different types of urban form have found that in London increasing ground floor density

reduced risk of burglary by 38% for houses and 16% for flats.29 Living on traditionally

conceived terraced streets isn’t just good for you. It makes you safer. So do symbolic or

real barriers which delineate between the street and semi-private or private space.

Burglars use these as guides to risk and are less likely to burgle where distinctions are

evident.30

4.10 Jan Gehl has concluded from these studies that ‘in almost all situations one square

metre of space adjacent to home is more useful and used more often than ten square

metres around the corner.31 ‘No single topic has greater impact on the life and

attractiveness of city space than active, open and lively edges. When the rhythms of the

city’s buildings produce short units, many doors and carefully designed details at

ground-floor level, they support life in the city and near buildings. When the city’s edges

work, they reinforce city life. Activities can supplement each other, the wealth of

experience increases, walking becomes safer and distances seem shorter.’32

4.11 The problem is that, as set out above in paragraphs 3.16 to 3.19 and 4.4 these

proposals make the main street less effective walking architecture and dissolve the

ornate ‘narrow front many doors’ character of The Broadway.

5. The architectural description of the buildings contains statements that are

simply historically or typologically incorrect. For example, as a mere

statement of art-historical fact it is not ‘classically defined’ as is asserted.

28 Brown, S., Mason, C., Perrino, T., Lombard, J., Martinez, F., Plater-Zyberk, E., Spokane, A., Szapocznik (2008), ‘Built Environment and Physical Environment in Hispanic Elders: the role of “eyes on the street”’, Environmental Health Perspectives, 2008, pp. 1300-7. 29 Hillier, B. & Sahbaz, O. (2008), An evidence based approach to crime and urban design, available at www.spacesyntax.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Hillier-Sahbaz_An-evidence-based-approach_010408.pdf (accessed December 2015). 30 Brown & Bentley (1993), ‘Residential burglars judge risk: the role of territoriality’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 51-61. 31 This is in line with the findings of the Ipsos-MORI focus group run for RIBA discussed above which found residents valued less green space nearer to home over more green space further away. RIBA (2012), The way we live now, p. 49, pp. 52-3. 32 Gehl J., (2010), Cities for People, p.88.

23

This matters because the proposal is in fact rather mundane and very

similar to many other developments by the same architects

5.1 The Design and Access Statement Addendum claims on p. 35 that the tower block

(building 8) is ‘classically designed.’ This is incorrect. To take an unambiguous

reference point, the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture describes classical architecture as

being architecture adhering to ‘precedents that were respected as having some kind of

authoritative excellence,’ and ‘laws, order, and rules in artistic matters.’ Although

classical architecture has many variants (for example Rococo to Palladian) nevertheless

it remains a distinct architectural style which specifically references important elements

of ancient design. Differing authorities would emphasise different components but

amongst the key elements of classical architecture usually referenced by writers are a

set of conventional forms.33 These include:

• Columns with fixed proportions and ornaments according to their orders (Doric,

Ionic, Tuscan, Corinthian and Composite columns);

• Proportions with a range of relationships between height and width of buildings

suggested or required (examples include buildings or rooms which are twice as high

as they are wide); and

• Symmetry.

5.2 It is simply incorrect to say that the tower block, Building 8, meets these criteria and can

be descried as ‘classically designed’.

• The building does not contain columns, let alone columns with the fixed proportions of

one of the classical orders;

• The facades have none of the ornaments of classic architecture and would be better

described as featureless with windows. Where there are opportunities for ornament

(e.g. balconies or window surrounds) they are consistently not taken;

• As a building which is 67m high it is simply impossible for it to meet any of the

classical rules of height to width proportion;

• It is not symmetrical: as described on p.107 of the Design and Access Statement it is

in fact ‘gently twisted’ and has ‘two very different facades.’ On p.109 it is pointed out

that ‘The diamond shape of the building means that its massing changes depending

33 Roman architect Vitruvious was the first to write on classical architecture with his treatise De Architectura, which outlined fundamental elements of classical architecture. It outlines different proportion systems for different classic orders (Doric and Tuscan orders using a 1:7 ratio, where one equals the column width and seven is the height; Ionic and Corinthian use proportions of 1:8 and 1:9 respectively.) In the sixteenth century, Andrea Palladio developed these categorisations further. To take specifically British and more recent examples; in the 1960s the historian of Georgian London, Sir John Summerson, wrote The Classical Language of Architecture. More recently, classical architects such as Robert Adam and Demetri Porphyrios have written about classical architecture, invoking the specific elements that characterise it. These elements are not present in the design of building 8.

24

on where it is viewed from.’ The presence of sliding shutters as shown in the image on

p.44 furthers the asymmetry, something which is also demonstrated in the image in

the Design and Access Statement Addendum January 2016 on p.35.

5.3 The Design and Access Statement Addendum says (p.35) that “the middle section has

an elegant surface, precisely articulated and well thought through to respond to

orientation, sunlight and wind.” These are not defining characteristics of classical

architecture.

5.4 There are other errors of description which reveal fundamental confusions in what the

development is trying to achieve. For example, the Design and Access Statement

variously refers to Haven Place, the re-routed public route through the site as a ‘mews’,

a ‘mews lane’ and a ‘mews street’ at least 20 times. However, a mews (initially a home

for horses) has come to mean a quiet residential street near a busy thoroughfare. It is

not a short cut through the city, but (appropriately given the lane’s historic name) a

residential haven. As the DAS (p.28) makes clear, the re-routed Haven Place has been

designed with precisely the opposite intention of being ‘an active street used daily by

local residents’ which competes with the High Street and is able to ‘offer a short cut

through the Site.’ The DAS makes clear that the route has been explicitly changed to

offer;

‘a natural route to/from the station offering a short cut, and a connection to The

Broadway Centre. For these reasons, the alignment of the mews lane was tweaked

to turn at an angle of 60 degree rather than 90. The resulting configuration

establishes an axis with the entrance to The Broadway Centre, naturally linking these

two shopping destinations.’ (DAS, p.28)

5.5 This is not the last important errors of description. The DAS (p.47 and p.161) refers to

the base of the tower block as a new ‘city square’. This is simply ridiculous. Not only is

the space, in point of fact, a triangle. More importantly, city squares in London function,

to cite their premier historian, Todd Longstaffe-Gowan in The London Square, as ‘green

enclaves’ and ‘are among the distinctive and admired features of the metropolis and are

England’s greatest contribution to the development of European town planning and

urban form.’34 This ‘new city square’ is merely (to quote the DAS Addendum, p.35) the

space ‘that is created at [the tower block’s] base …. the single point of entry for all

residents where the lane changes direction.’ To mistake a triangle for a square is one

thing. To mistake an important sky-blessed public space in the classical city for the

34 Longstaffe-Gowan, T. (2012), The London Square.

25

shadowy and overlooked entrance to a tower block (in itself in a mislabelled mews) is

quite another.

Figure xv – Two proposals for a London Square? Or is one a city square and one a triangular

entrance to a tower block?

5.6 I am not pointing out these verbal mistakes out of pedantry. These errors matter

because, intentionally or not, incorrect descriptions such as these (‘classically designed’,

‘city square’, ‘mews lane’) with their patina of traditional place-making give the false

impression of a sensitive and appropriate London development which respects the

genius loci. Sadly, this proposal is anything but. In fact, the buildings, rather, than

responding to the street scape and to the character of Ealing and its Conservation Area

are startlingly humdrum and average. Responses to the character of Ealing are crude

and cheap. The proposals could be compared visually far more truthfully to many of the

towers and blocks currently being built across London and beyond with their high ratios

of windows and their ‘spreadsheet architecture’ of repetitive windows surrounded by

machine-made brick panels.

26

Figure xvi – Rather than being classical and place-specific the proposal is humdrum and

typical of many other schemes by the same architects

6. The design is premised on a super-density, complex and highly engineered

built form. This has been done to maximise value but comes with very

material disadvantages for residents in terms of wellbeing, social relations,

childhood development, stress and fear of crime. Some of these contradict

overall healthy planning aims and some specific planning policies of the

Ealing Plan.

6.1 One of the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF states that planning should ‘take

account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and cultural wellbeing

for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet local

needs.’ [paragraph 17]. The NPPF outlines its purpose as contributing to the

achievement of sustainable development. It outlines that one of the guiding principles

behind this is ‘ensuring a strong, healthy and just society.’ NPPF policies 69-78 deal with

‘Promoting healthy communities.’ The most relevant elements of these in relation to

policies which this development undermines are:

▪ Policy 69 which states that, ‘Planning policies and decisions… should aim to achieve

places which promote opportunities for meetings between members of the

community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, including

through mixed-use developments, strong neighbourhood centres and active street

27

frontages which bring together those who work, live and play in the vicinity’ and ‘safe

and accessible developments, containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and

high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public

areas;’

▪ Policy 70 which states that ‘planning policy and decisions should plan positively for

the provision and use of shared space.’

6.2 Elements of the Ealing Core Strategy very much reflect these NPPF policies. Policy 1.1

(e) of the Ealing Core Strategy sets the Vision for Ealing ‘To be a healthy and safe place

to live.’ Policy 1.1 (j) states the spatial vision of ‘achieving and maintaining a clean and

healthy environment for all communities to enjoy.’

6.3 This development is typified by a high rise, super-density, internally complex, high

engineered built form. Residential units are accessed through a lobby in the residential

tower located in the northern block which at third floor provides access via pedestrian

bridges to the 8 residential buildings located at podium level. The scheme consists of;

• Building 8 - the ‘tall building,’ the 18 storey (67m) tower;

• 188 residential units at a high density of 305 units /hectare over a 0.62 hectare site;

• A very high amount of semi-private / semi-public space - evidenced by the shared

garden on p.68-69 of the DAS;

• Many units off most cores and lifts and corridors accessing many flats - particularly

building 2 (p.47, 97 of DAS) and building 8. (p.107 of DAS);

• p.150 of the DAS outlines that there will be ‘A single access point for all residents’.

This essentially means that nearly all residents will access their property through one

core;

• The design and this concierge approach means there will be a complicated off-street

access for many residents to their flat. As the extensive explanation outlined on p.47

of the DAS explains: ‘A shared entry lobby for residents is located at the base of the

tall building, facing onto the small city square that is created where the mews lane

changes direction. All residents enter the development via this lobby space. A

concierge service and parcel room will be provided alongside lounge seating, offering

residents an inviting and welcoming address that will create a sense of identity and

lend activity to the square. From this double height space, residents reach a shared

garden at first floor level, where they access their own buildings from a series of

courtyards and gardens, connected by planted ‘sky bridges’ From these sky bridges

28

the proposals will produce therefore a scene whereby residents literally look down

upon non-resident below.

Figure xvii – Complicated access from single entry to blocks through semi-private / semi-

public space

• The flat sizes are small – with a one bedroom flat being are around 80sqm in size.

This compares unfavourably with the average new home size of 1,37sqm in

Denmark, 98sqm in the Netherlands and 85sqm in Britain. Whilst being compatible

with minimum space standards this is not conducive to good wellbeing outcomes35

• Over and above the single access to the overall development, many flats will be

accessed off the same building core;

• Figure xviii show 8 units off one floor of one core on building 2. In total 32 flats are

therefore accessible from this core

35 RIBA, (2011), The case for space.

29

Figure xviii – Building 2: eight units per floor. 32 units per core

• Figure xix shows building 8 (the “tall building.”) which also has 6 units off one

floor of one core. In total 84 flats are therefore accessible from this core.

Figure xix – Building 8: six units per floor. 84 flats per core

• In other words, this is a ‘small flats in large building model.’ It is internally

complex and has a lengthy, non-linear and suboptimal access from the public

highway to the private residence with entrances via bridges and semi-private

shared space. Though intended for the luxury market (see paragraph 7.6), this

30

type of internally complex arrangement was precisely what designers turned

against a generation ago due to their manifest failures as a place for humans to

live – evidence which I will review below. We are now re-creating the complex

forms of the 1960s. 9-24 The Broadway typifies this trend. ‘Those who forget the

past are condemned to relive it.’

6.4 Unfortunately the complex, highly-engineered and ‘small flat in high rise’ model

has measurable adverse wellbeing impact on residents. Those living in flats in

high rise and large complex buildings typified by lifts and corridors often know

fewer of their neighbours, are more stressed and behave less pro-socially

themselves. Problems seem to be greatest for the less well off, those with

children and those who use these types of homes as permanent residences.

6.5 In this context, the next section examines the evidence of the wellbeing impact of living

in complex, high-rise housing such as this development. The most comprehensive

academic literature review (by Professor Gifford of the University of Victoria) into this

subject concluded that;

‘the literature suggests that high-rises are less satisfactory than other housing forms

for most people, that they are not optimal for children, that social relations are more

impersonal and helping behaviour is less than in other housing forms, that crime and

fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account for some

suicides.’36

6.6 Clearly people can be happy in towers and miserable in houses and vice versa but of a

total of at least 85 peer-reviewed academic studies which contrasted socio-economically

comparable groups living in high and low-rise accommodation, 67 (or 79%) found that

high rise residence was negatively associated with some aspect of wellbeing. Nine

(11%) found no association either way. And nine (11%) found a positive association

between high-rise residency and wellbeing. The spread of research and the correlations

found are set out in Table ii.

6.7 Whatever limitations there may be in individual studies, all of the studies cited in Table ii

compare high-rise residents to reasonably similar low-rise residents and have been

published in an academic journal. Some are naturally controlled groups who are

randomly allocated (for example students or military families). Others are sociologically

or economically similar. Studies where no account was taken of material differences

between groups or where no comparison from high-rise to low-rise was attempted were

36 Gifford, R. (2007), “The Consequence of living in High-Rise Buildings’, Architectural Science Review, vol. 50. p. 1.

31

excluded for this table. So, for example, data that shows people can be satisfied (or

dissatisfied) in houses is not considered if no sociologically valid comparison is included

(and vice versa).37 Also excluded are studies where the compared populations are

dissimilar and this is not adjusted for. For example, the most recent research of which

we are aware found that Vancouver high rise residents were less likely than those living

in detached homes to know their neighbours’ names (56% to 81%), to have done them

a favour (23% to 48%), to trust them (40% to 60%) or to believe that their wallet would

be returned if lost locally (55% to 68%). However, resident populations are probably not

comparable and the difference is not adjusted for so the survey is not included in table

ii.38

Association

Total numbe

r of studies

% showing high rise

‘bad’

% showing no link

% showing high rise

‘good’

Satisfaction with home 12 92% 0% 8%

Levels of mental strain, crowing, stress, optimism

19 66% 21% 11%

Depression and more serious mental health

5 100% 0% 0%

Suicide 4 50% 50% 0%

Behavioural problems for children

5 80% 20% 0%

Levels of crime 6 50% 50% 0%

Fear of crime 2 50% 0% 50%

Pro or anti-social behaviour

5 100% 0% 0%

Levels of social engagement and social

capital 16 75% 13% 13%

Children’s progress in high- rise

11 91% 9% 0%

Total 85 78% 12% 11%

Table ii - High rise vs. low-rise residency and wellbeing

6.7 I find it very hard not to draw from this survey of research a clear view that living in high

rise building is associated with higher levels of stress and mental depression

(particularly for women in families), is normally inimical to effective child-rearing and

seems to be normally associated with lower levels of social capital. (High rise blocks in

estate-type urban forms have been associated with higher crime but this seems to be

not or at any rate less true for high rise today with associated high running costs.) This

37 There are multiple reports with varying degrees of rigour which show that certain populations at certain times are or are not satisfied. 38 Vancouver Foundation, (2012), The effect of apartment living on neighbourliness.

32

is not to say that there is not a market for them or that high rises residences do not have

their place for (usually, not always) the prosperous, the childless and the second-home

owners. Well maintained (and they are much more expensive to maintain than normal

buildings) and plugged into a proper streetscape they can work. But they are, clearly,

statistically, not for everyone.

6.9 Satisfaction and stress: to pull out briefly a few themes. Although individual studies

show that residents can be satisfied in high rise, in eleven out of twelve controlled

comparisons we have been able to find between people living in different housing forms,

people living in tower blocks are less happy with their homes than people living in low

rise. To be clear, these are comparisons which take account of social and economic

status and are not comparing ‘apples with pears’. In one survey, British flat dwellers

complained more about privacy, isolation, loneliness and noise. In the second survey,

an American comparison of otherwise equal college students randomly assigned to high

or low-rise buildings, those in low-rise buildings were more satisfied. A nationwide

Canadian survey found satisfaction highest among those in houses and lowest among

those in high-rises. In a New York comparison of randomly assigned social tenants

those in high-rise buildings were less satisfied with their building than those in low-rise

buildings. The same was true of a survey of moderate-income households where high-

rises were found to be less satisfactory than terraced houses or low-rise flats. In a sixth

study, the taller the building, the lower the residents’ satisfaction even when several

possible influences (education, income, age) were taken into account.39 A 2009 Indian

study of 512 randomly selected families found a starkly ‘unfavourable perception of the

housing environment by the residents of high-rise buildings.’40 Another recent, though

less wide-ranging, British study compared three West London estates. 60% of those

who lived in the post-First World War development of houses and two storey flats would

recommend it as a place to live in comparison to only 43 and 8% of residents of more

monolithic estates.41 In an early 1980s survey of residents’ views of London multi-storey

housing, there were 258 specific and spontaneous negative comments about multi-

storey housing and 67 spontaneous positive ones – a ratio of nearly four to one

against.42

6.10 Many have argued that high-rise can work for the elderly (as long as they are kept

secure and the lifts work). Controlled comparative studies we are aware of are not very

39 Cited in Gifford, R. (2007), “The Consequence of living in High-Rise Buildings” in Architectural Science Review, vol. 50. pp. 4-5. 40 Chatterjee, M. (2009), ‘Perception of Housing Environment among High-Rise Dwellers’ in Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35, pp.85-92., 41 Lane, L. and Power, A. (2009) Low income housing estates. In fact four estates were studied but no detailed interviews were conducted at the fourth so this has been excluded from our synopsis. P. 7, pp. 44-52. 42 Coleman, A. (1985), Utopia on trial, p. 33.

33

reassuring. It is true that one modest study of elderly persons who were randomly

assigned to high- and low-rises reported a small difference in satisfaction that favoured

high rises over low rises. However, a nationwide U.S. study of the elderly found that

residents of low buildings liked their housing more than residents of taller buildings,

although the size of this effect was quite modest. A third study found that low-rise

residents needed less daily help and were less prone to confusion. They offered ‘more

positive reasons for liking their residence than high-rise residents did, and the high-rise

residents offered more negative comments than the low-rise residents did’ although they

did find the high rise social environment socially supportive.43

6.11 The majority of controlled studies (13 out of 19) also show that the residents of high-rise

blocks suffer from more strain and mental health difficulties than those in low-rise

buildings, even when socio-economic status is comparable. To cite one example, a

study of British military families randomly assigned to houses and flats found those in

flats suffered from about three times the rate of neurosis as those in detached houses

whilst also being 57 per cent more likely to need to go the doctor and 63 per cent more

likely to be referred to a specialist. Increased sickness or mental strain were most

pronounced for children under 10 and for women aged 20 to 29 and those over 40.44 At

the other end of the social spectrum a study in Hong Kong found that there was more

emotional strain among people living in multiple-family units on higher floors. Indian

studies have agreed. One 1992 study found that elderly male residents in Kolkata and

Dhaka struggled with the stress associated with living in high-rise buildings.45

6.12 A 1978 study of working-class and lower middle class residents of the Bronx in New

York found ‘vast differences’ between those living in high-rise and low-rise buildings.

Those in high-rise had less social support, a lower sense of control over their lives and

felt more crowded than their sociologically identical neighbours in low-rise buildings.46

UK researchers have found that mothers in flats are more depressed and lonely, that

rates of mental illness rose with floor levels, that psychological symptoms increased in

high-rise buildings and that those moving out of high-rise became happier and less

depressed. A study that controlled carefully for age, education and occupational level

found that husbands (though not wives) in flats rather than small houses had a greater

incidence of psychiatric illness, that fathers had worse relationships with their children

43 Cited in Gifford, R. (2007), “The Consequence of living in High-Rise Buildings” in Architectural Science Review, vol. 50. pp. 5. Also Devlin, A. (1980), ‘Housing for the Elderly’, Environment and Behavior December 1980 vol. 12 no. 4 451-466 44 Fanning, D. (1967), ‘Families in flats’ in British Medical Journal, 18, pp. 382-386. 45 Dasgupta, S.K., Bhattacharyya, S. & Asaduzzaman, M. (1992), ‘The impact of tall buildings on elderly residents’ Bangladesh Journal of Psychology 13, pp/ 7-15. 46 McCarthy, D. & Saegert, S. (1978), ‘Residential density, social overload, and social withdrawal’ in Human Ecology, 6. pp. 253-272.

34

(hitting them more often) and that marital discord was higher.47 In contrast, four studies

show no association between high rise residence and mental health or strain and two

actually show a positive association between living in high rise and mental health.

6.13 Children in high rise: the evidence seems to be particularly strong for children. Nearly

all studies of which we are aware have found associations between high-rise living,

childhood behavioural problems and slower development – again even when socio-

economic status is comparable. Only one study that we are aware of has found high-rise

living beneficial to children (and this was arguably a non-typical case where children

living in a 32 storey high rise very near a major road learnt to read better higher up and

away from the very heavy traffic).48 The broader picture seems hard to argue with. One

study matched 99 pre-school children on gender and economic well-being and found

that children in high-rises suffered from more behavioural problems49. In another boys

(but not girls) who lived in fourteen versus three storey buildings were rated by teachers

as having more problems such as hyperactivity and hostility50. Other studies have found

children in high-rises suffering from more bedwetting and temper tantrums and that the

best predictor of juvenile delinquency was not population density but living in blocks of

flats as opposed to houses. One Japanese study found that the development of many

skills such as dressing, helping and learning to use the lavatory was slower.51 Even an

Israeli study of middle class high rise residents that was otherwise more positive to high

rise living was most negative for those with children under six.52

6.14 Why is this? Most have come to the conclusion that it is just much harder to bring up

children in large blocks of flats – particularly high-rise ones. Several studies show that

children go outside less when they live in high-rises and that they spend more time

playing alone or in restricted play. This is not without consequences. One controlled

study, compared mothers of under 5s in the Newcastle estate of Cruddas Park. Sixty-

two per cent of mothers living on the sixth floor or above reported difficulties with the

‘play, health [or] personality’ of their children. Fifty-three per cent of mothers in high rise

below the sixth floor reported issues. However only 3 per cent of mothers in houses

reported issues.53 When children do go out they are also out of sight and much harder to

47 Cited in Gifford, R. (2007), “The Consequence of living in High-Rise Buildings” in Architectural Science Review, vol. 50. pp. 6-7. 48 Cohen, S. & Singer, J. (1973), ‘Apartment Noise, Auditory Discrimination and Reading Ability in Children’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9, pp.407-422. 49 Richman, N. (1977), ‘Behaviour problems in pre-school children’ in British Journal of Psychiatry. 131, pp.53-58. 50 Saegert, S. (1982) ‘Environments and children’s’ mental health: residential density and low income children’ in Baum, A. & Singer, J. Handbook of psychology and health, pp. 247-271. 51 Cited in Gifford, R. (2007), “The Consequence of living in High-Rise Buildings” in Architectural Science Review, vol. 50. p 8., p. 10. 52 Churchman, A, Ginsberg, Y, (1984), ‘The image and experience of high rise housing in Israel’, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 4, pp.27-41. 53 Gittus, E. (1976), Flats, families and the under-fives, p. 81.

35

control. As early as 1961 British qualitative research was showing that mothers were

concerned about the safety of their children on balconies, staircases and lifts and that

the lack of outdoor play opportunities was creating stress and illness for mothers Over

50 per cent of young children in high flats were only ever playing in their flats.54

Explaining the link between flats and litter Professor Coleman summed up the dilemma

in the 1980s:

‘There can be little doubt that littering characterises flats more than houses and it is

easy to see why. In houses with gardens, children can spend their formative pre-

school years under close parental supervision. The garden is a safe place where

toddlers can gain the self-confidence that comes of venturing out alone while

knowing that help is immediately at hand if needed. They learn to care for the home

territory, partly through the natural impulse, at this age, to imitate parents, and partly

by being taught, until litter abstention and litter clearance become engaged habits.

In blocks of flats these child-rearing advantages are not available. A mother has a

different range of options – all of them unpalatable. She can keep her children safely

indoors, which deprives them of energetic exercise to let off steam. She can let them

play on the balcony, with the risk of a serious fall. She can let them loose in the

corridor, where their noise may drive their neighbours mad. Or she can allow them

out into the grounds, where she cannot always be supervising them, and where they

pick up bad habits from unsupervised children. Some parents succeed, against all

the odds, in teaching their children not to litter. Others do not, and litter may be ever-

present. Children then see it as the norm, not as an environmental insult – an attitude

which is probably permanent...

As successive age-groups of litter louts are bred, their collective activities become

too much for the remaining litter clearer. An old lady living in a slab-block in Tower

Hamlets described how at first she had regularly scrubbed the corridor and staircase,

only to find them promptly re-littered and fouled by dogs. Her sense of responsibility

was strong, and she continued the abortive cleaning for a whole year before finally

giving it up as useless.”55

6.15 Recent research carried out by Ipsos-MORI for RIBA found that parents still had the

strongest preference for private gardens. One interviewee commented: ‘I would like my

living space to lead onto my garden. At the moment I’m upstairs and the garden’s down.

My son is a terror, he needs space to run but I don’t always want to be out in the

54 Gittus, E. (1976), Flats, families and the under-fives, p.11. 55 Coleman, A. (1985) Utopia on trial, p. 83. A seminal study by Pearl Jephcott of multi-storey housing in late 1960s Glasgow had reached similar conclusions. Jephcott, P. (1971) Homes in high flats: Some of the human problems involved in multi-storey housing, p. 87.

36

garden.’56 These problems with children would seem to be crucial to the difficulties that

many tower blocks have faced over the years as petty failures reinforce each other and

spiralled down into criminality. 70 per cent of graffiti in one study was committed by

children57. In another study children were responsible for much of the urine and faeces.

Excrement was most common in blocks next to play areas, especially where the design

made it difficult to reach home in a hurry.58 A UK Home Office Survey also found that

vandalism in tower blocks was significantly correlated with the number of children aged

6-16, increasing in direct proportion to the average number of children per dwelling.59

6.16 Human interactions, scale and crime in high rise: when the internal scale of a large

building matches their external scale, large buildings can ‘atomise’ and dehumanise by

taking away from residents any ‘control’ over who they will meet as they travel between

their flat and the public realm. The can increase withdrawal and anonymity and

decrease friendships. Residents may meet more people but they will know fewer of

them. Research suggests that ‘the richest social environments are those in which we

feel free to edge closer together or move apart as we wish.’60 However living in large

buildings can undermines these bonds of social interdependence. And society needs

these bonds. Professor Robert Gifford, has cited a very wide range of controlled studies

that make this point emphatically. A Canadian study found that high-rise residents

tended to choose friends from outside the building. A Hong Kong study found that high-

rise residents with a strong sense of neighbourhood tended to interact with colleagues

or schoolmates rather than physical neighbours. A study of American students found

that those in small living units believed they benefited from more social interactions than

those in high-rise buildings. A study of German and Italian high-rise residents found that

both wanted more friends among their neighbours and believed this would be possible if

they lived in smaller buildings. Other studies back up this belief. At least four separate

studies show that high-rise residents have fewer genuine friendships with their

neighbours than low-rise residents. In one Israeli study, women who lived on high floors

knew more neighbours but those on lower floors had closer relations with those that

they knew. Those with garden flats had three times as many friends in the building as

those on high floors. In another study residents of low-rise buildings had fifty per cent

more local friends than residents of high-rise buildings. Two other studies found that

social relations were poorer for high-rise residents.61

56 RIBA (2012), The way we live now, p. 53. 57 Redknap, C. (1983), The effect of entrance design in blocks of flats, unpublished report to the Nuffield Foundation. Cited in Coleman, A. (1985), Utopia on trial, p. 26. 58 Coleman, A. (1985) Utopia on trial, p. 26 59 Wilson, S. (1978), ‘Vandalism and “defensible space” on London housing estates’ in Home Office Research Study No. 47. 60 Montgomery, C, (2013), Happy City, p. 139. 61Cited in Gifford, R. (2007), “The Consequence of living in High-Rise Buildings” in Architectural Science Review, vol. 50. p.10.

37

6.17 The evidence suggests that people just aren’t as nice to each other in large blocks of

flats. In two 1970s studies stamped addressed envelopes were placed on hallway floors

in college halls of residence that were 22-25, 4-7 and 2-4 storeys high. Letters were

mailed in inverse proportion to building height in both studies. Donations were also

sought of milk cartons for an art project. The fewest donations per capita were received

in high-rise blocks. Interviews of student residents in these and one other Israeli study

also reported that social support and involvement declined with height within buildings.

A comparison between those in high-rise flats and garden flats found that those in

garden flats had a significantly greater sense of ‘community’ and a greater sense of

‘membership’62 This evidence corroborates the recollections of many residents of

neighbourhoods bulldozed to build estates that the local sense of ‘community’ never

recovered. As one Deptford resident recalled, ‘once they started pulling everything

down, it all died.’63

6.18 Exceptions or not? Men and the wealthy. There clearly is a market for top end

residential occupation of flats high in towers. In modern, high-end, well-managed

developments in London with a reliable lift each floor is typically worth an additional

1.5% - with this market very driven by Asian purchasers.64 Evidence also shows that

middle income or wealthy residents can be very satisfied with their homes as long as the

blocks are well (in other words expensively) managed.65 There does not appear to be a

body of academic literature studying wellbeing and wealthy high rise residents. (Perhaps

this is not surprising. Private bankers study the rich. Sociologists tend to study the poor.)

It is hard therefore to make completely categorical assertions but some points seem to

be self-evident. Despite the lack of robust evidence, there seem to be at least three

good reasons to believe that high rise will work better for more prosperous residents:

▪ The first is that the more prosperous can afford to buy flats in central city districts

towers where high density, additional footfall from workers and general high levels of

prosperity can support busy streets and ground floor retail (though for the

inescapable micro-climatic effects of high rise on light and wind see below);

▪ The second is that the more wealthy commit far less physical crime and with salaried

doormen to keep them safe from outside intruders, there seems to be no evidence

62Cited in Gifford, R. (2007), “The Consequence of living in High-Rise Buildings” in Architectural Science Review, vol. 50. p. 9, p. 10. A comparison of elderly Afro-Americans in high-rise and low-rise buildings found a similar phenomenon though other social differences between the two groups meant that the survey was only suggestive. 63 Our Streets, Deptford High Street, screened on BBC2, 6 June 2012. 64 Knight Franks, (2012), Tall Towers, p.7. 65 For example, Mackintosh, E. (1982). High in the city. EDRA: Environmental Design Research Association, No. 13, pp. 424-34. Broyer, G. (2002). The appropriateness of buildings over 20 storeys high for middle-class residents. Research thesis, Technion, the Israeli Institute of Technology.

38

that the same correlations between large buildings and crime are witnessed in luxury

high rise as in social housing;

▪ The third is that the more prosperous can afford to meet the clearly high running

costs of larger buildings. The long-term evidence is fairly consistent that larger

buildings such as tower blocks cost more to run per square foot due to their inherent

complexity and to the need to manage in the private realm some of the actions that

are performed gratis in the public realm (notably natural surveillance). A 2012 study

by the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning Research found that service

charges for flats rose as densities increased. 66 Andy von Bradsky, the former

chairman of PRP Architects, has concluded that ‘it is inevitable that tall buildings

have much higher management costs.’67 This seems to be particularly the case as

high rise buildings age. Service charges in the Barbican Centre’s Shakespeare

Tower are now £8,000 a year.68 Clearly it is easier for more prosperous residents to

pay these charges.

6.19 Oscar Newman summed up this situation well in 1972:

‘The high-rise prototype with its myriad of resident janitorial and security staff, worked

well for upper-middle income families with few children but cannot be simplistically

transplanted, minus the accompanying staff and accoutrements, for the use of large,

low-income families.’69

6.20 Finally, there is some evidence that indicates that high-rise living works better for men

than for women. One of the studies cited above found, in 1977, that floor level was a

‘strong, direct and durable predictor of psychological strain’ among women but was ‘a

weaker, though as persistent, negative predictor of strain among men.’ Put in normal

English, in this study living up high made women notably less happy: it made men very

slightly more happy. The author hypothesised that the reason for this was that more

women aspired to the ‘traditional’ role of the ‘wife-mother’ in a house while men were

more attracted to the ‘symbolic …upward social mobility’ of penthouse living.70 We won’t

speculate as to whether this is still true or not but in 2014 only 37% of female Londoners

aged 16-64 said they would be ‘happy’ living in a ‘tall building’. 63% of male Londoners

said they would be.71

66 Jones, M. (2012) High density housing – the impact on tenants, pp. 2-3. 67 Speaking at launch of Superdensity the Sequel on 22 May 2015. 68 HTA, Levitt Bernstein, Pollard Thomas Edwards, PRP, (2015), Superdensity the sequel, p. 38. 69 Newman, O. (1972), Defensible Space, p. 7. 70 Gillis, A. R. (1977). High-rise housing and psychological strain. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 18, pp. 418-431. 71 Ipsos MORI survey for New London Architecture carried out in February 2014. Available at: www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3361/High-rise-in-the-capital-Londoners-split-on-merits-of-more-tall-buildings.aspx

39

6.21 Towers and high rise clearly have their place in cities. A subset of people actively want

to live in them. A rather larger group, particularly younger richer men, would be happy

to. When actively chosen, they can act as status symbols particularly the penthouses.

They permit ultra-high density development of commercial or residential use. Some

wealthy residents (particularly men, those without children or seeking second homes)

will pay handsomely for them. However, all the evidence on wellbeing and built form

would seem to suggest that towers are an inefficient and unsatisfactory form of housing

for most people most of the time. They would appear to have certain core constraints as

a place to live for most people. It is just harder to regulate unwanted social interactions

and it is harder to bring up children successfully. Without high costs or residents

restricted to the more prosperous or the elderly there would appear to be a greater risk

of some types of crime as well and certainly a greater fear of crime. These greater

costs, the greater management complexity just mean that high rise developments can

more easily ‘go wrong’ particularly when there are many children or less prosperous

groups living in them. Maybe this is something we will get right this time in

developments such as The Broadway. Maybe not. It is certainly more risky. To quote

Professor Gifford’s conclusions again,

‘Many, but by no means all, residents are more satisfied by low-rise than by high-

rise housing. High rises are more satisfactory for residents when they are more

expensive, located in better neighbourhoods, and residents chose to live in them.

Children are better off in low-rise housing; high rises either restrict their outdoor

activity or leave them relatively unsupervised outdoors, which may be why children

who live in high rises have, on average, more behaviour problems. Residents of

high-rises probably have fewer friendships in the buildings, and certainly help each

other less. Crime and fear of crime probably are greater in high-rise buildings. A

small proportion of suicides may be attributable to living in high rises.’ 72

7. Current and future high running costs of such a complex super-density

development will in the long term probably be associated with a reduction

in levels of affordable housing

7.1 As we saw above (paragraph 6.18) high density living is associated with much higher

running costs. Service charges at the new Nine Elms Point, where densities are in

excess of 350 units per hectare, are averaging between £2,250 a year for a studio flat to

£4,600 a year for a 3 bedroom flat in 2014.73 The high service charges for complex large

72 Gifford, R. (2007), “The Consequence of living in High-Rise Buildings’, Architectural Science Review, vol. 50. p. 13. 73 Superdensity The Sequel (2015) p.32

40

buildings become particularly prevalent as buildings age. Cost go up faster over time as

embedded technology fails, standards evolve, institutional memory is lost and ownership

structures become more complicated. Certainly, that has always historically been the

pattern. By 1964 high-rise schemes were already costing 53% more to maintain than

low-rise schemes. By the mid-1970s, as labour costs rose and as the buildings aged,

this cost differential had increased to 100%.74 In the Barbican in the City of London the

Annual service charge on a two bedroom flat in the 41 year old Shakespeare Tower is

£8,000. 75

7.2 As outlined in the DAS (p.43), 30% of the uplift in units on this development are

provided as intermediate affordable housing. This consists of 51 units overall.

7.3 The Planning Committee report of 24 February 2016 outlines that the provision of

Affordable housing will be delivered as Discount Market Rent, which will be for a fixed

term of 25 years. It is not clear why this housing is not guaranteed to be affordable after

this period.

7.4 Ealing’s Core Strategy 1.2 (a) says: ‘At least 50% of the housing developed in the

borough up to 2026 will be affordable housing, as defined in the London Plan, to

achieve mixed communities with a range of housing types across the borough and to

meet need.’

7.5 As we have seen (paragraph 6.3) this development is particularly high density and

complex. This will be associated with high running costs and service charges and, I

judge, make it highly likely that this development is aimed at the luxury market

7.6 Whilst future running can never be known with certainty, given the caveats being made

on the provision of affordable housing in the longer term, it does not seem unreasonable

to presume that there is a very material likelihood that this development will only provide

affordable housing for a period of years before increasing running costs make this

impossible in the longer term. We speculate whether this is something that the

developer has taken account of in their cash-flow modelling. If they have not, they

probably should have done.

8. The hyper-density high rise urban form also comes with some very

measurable disadvantages for passers-by and neighbours of higher stress,

greater social stratification, reduced light and lower liveability. Some of

74 Dunleavy, P. (1981), The Politics of mass housing in Britain, p.89. 75 Create Streets (2016) “Direct Planning Revolution for London” p.16

41

these contradict overall healthy planning aims of the NPPT and of the

Ealing Plan as outlined below:

8.1 As we have seen, one of the Core Planning Principles of the NPPF states that planning

should ‘take account of and support local strategies to improve health, social and

cultural wellbeing for all, and deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and

services to meet local needs.’ [paragraph 17]. The NPPF outlines its purpose as

contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. It outlines that one of the

guiding principles behind this is ‘ensuring a strong, healthy and just society.’ NPPF

policies 69-78 deal with ‘Promoting healthy communities.’ The most relevant elements of

these in relation to policies which this development undermines are:

▪ Policy 69 which states that, ‘Planning policies and decisions… should aim to achieve

places which promote opportunities for meetings between members of the

community who might not otherwise come into contact with each other, including

through mixed-use developments, strong neighbourhood centres and active street

frontages which bring together those who work, live and play in the vicinity’ and ‘safe

and accessible developments, containing clear and legible pedestrian routes, and

high quality public space, which encourage the active and continual use of public

areas;’

▪ Policy 70 which states that ‘planning policy and decisions should plan positively for

the provision and use of shared space.’

8.2 Policy 2.5 of the Ealing Core Strategy states Ealing’s intention to ‘to introduce new town

squares and public spaces;’ in contrast (by implication) to private open spaces. Policy

7B:A:b states that new development must ensure ‘good levels of daylight and sunlight.’

8.3 Stress and mood: recent experiments with specialised headsets in a variety of urban

environments show that being surrounded by tall buildings produces a “substantial”

negative impact on mood. Professor Colin Ellard of the University of Waterloo in Canada

has carried out a number of virtual reality experiments on the matter. In these he asked

participants to wear specialised headsets and to walk through a variety of urban

environments created to test their emotional responses.76 The findings show that being

surrounded by tall buildings produces a ‘substantial’ negative impact on mood. As is

clear from this proposal, building 8 will be widely visible including from Haven Green. It

76 Ellard, C. (2015) Places of the Heart: The Psychogeography of Everyday Life

42

will therefore have this effect more widely and in a suburban part of London where high

rise self-evidently does not align with most people’s ‘sense of place’.

8.4 Towers fail to integrate with the ground floor plane around them. Given the limitations of

the human eye, ear and voice there is no way in which the upper levels of a tower can

integrate with the surrounding streets and city life in the way in which buildings up to five

or six storeys can. Humans have evolved with a horizontal sensory toolkit. As humans

walk and look around we do not see much above and even less when we look down 10°

as we typically do when we walk. Our normal field of vision is limited to 50-55° above

the horizon. With increasing distance interaction between those in higher flats and on

the street therefore becomes impossible. As the influential urban analyst and planner,

Professor Jan Gehl has written;

‘From the street we can only experience with difficulty events that take place higher

up in buildings. The higher up, the more difficult it is to see. We have to move further

and further back to look up, distances become greater and greater, and what we see

and experience diminishes…the connection between street plane and tall building is

effectively lost after the fifth floor. Communication from tall buildings to their

surroundings is correspondingly excellent from the two lower storeys and feasible

from the third, fourth and fifth floors. From there we can watch and follow the life of

the city; talking, shouting and arm movements can be perceived…Above five storeys

the situation changes drastically. Details cannot be seen, people on the ground floor

can neither be recognised nor contacted. Above the fifth floor, offices should logically

no longer be the province of the air-traffic authorities. At any rate they no longer

belong to the city.’77

8.5 The facts back up the argument. In one study of activity in a Copenhagen residential

area, those living on the ground floor comprised only 25% of all residents. However,

activities in and around semi-private outdoor space in front of ground floor homes made

up 55% of all outdoor activities in the neighbourhood. The ground floor residents were

part of the city.78 Their elevated neighbours were not. This matters because sociability in

the public sphere that people want and can contain (as opposed to unsought

interactions which they cannot escape) is a determinant of wellbeing. What compounds

this problem, of course, is that the most sensible housing to allocate to towers is high-

end homes for the rich (they can afford the service charges required by higher running

costs). Towers do not promote a neighbourly and socially integrated community. With its

77 Gehl J, (2010), Cities for People, pp. 41-2. 78 Gehl J, (2010), Cities for People, p.84.

43

use of a concierge access and its suite of non-publicly accessible private green space,

9-42 The Broadway is in effect a gated community as opposed to forming part of Ealing

and its town centre. It is a world within a world.

8.6 In addition to stress and social stratification, a further urbanistic and wellbeing concern

with towers is their micro-climatic impact on their immediate surroundings. This is most

acute in temperate climates such as London where sunlight and the lack of strong winds

can often play a crucial part in making the streets, squares and plazas usable outside

midsummer. The most frequently discussed of these is the adverse impact of towers

and large buildings on light and sunlight. I have not been able to conduct daylight or

sunlight analyses but clearly a development of this mass will have very material effects

on some neighbours and on passers-by. I note from the Daylight and Sunlight report for

the application that it leads to daylight and sunlight reductions in over 60% in some

cases. The loss of light more widely will be notable even if it is not at policy non-

compliant levels. Certain aspects of the scheme fail to take the opportunity to reduce

glare. Rather, details of the building, eg the metal shutters of the residences which will

reflect sunlight, are such that they will exacerbate rather than reduce glare.

9. Conclusion: The design and typology flaws in the proposed scheme will

have a detrimental effect on residents, passers-by and users of Ealing

town centre in a range of ways that are in contradiction of elements of the

NPPF, the London Plan, and the Ealing Local Plan and supporting

documents.

9.1 The proposals therefore, whilst being arguably in strict compliance with individual

policies within the NPPF and Ealing Policy documents, are contrary to the overall aims

and spirit of these documents and policies.

9.2 Specifically the proposals would appear to be contrary to the underlying intent of NPPF:

paragraphs 17 and 134, policies 69 and 70; of London Plan Policies 7.8 and 7.9; and

Ealing DPD Policies: 1.1(h), 1.1(e) 1.1 (j) , 2.5, 7B, E7.B.6, 7C, E7.4.2, E7.4.4, and 7.4.

1

SEC 3A

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

Public Inquiry into the called-in planning application by BE

Broadway BV in relation to land at 9-42 the Broadway, Ealing,

London W5 for:

Redevelopment and demolition of 9-42 The Broadway and 1-4 Haven Place

(retaining No. 9 and the front facades of No. 14 and Nos. 15-16 The Broadway)

and erection of 8 new buildings (ranging from 2 storeys to 18 storeys) to

provide 188 residential units (Use Class C3), 6,667sqm flexible retail

floorspace (Use Class A1/A3), 784sqm flexible retail / leisure floorspace (Use

Class A1/A3/D1/D2), 514sqm bar/nightclub (Use Class A4 / Sui Generis) with

basement car parking, new publically accessible route, associated public

realm and landscaping, residential vehicular access off The Broadway and

primary servicing off Springbridge Road via existing servicing route for 1-8

The Broadway and associated works.

Planning Inspectorate reference: APP/A5270/V/16/3151295

London Borough of Ealing reference: P/2015/3479

Summary of Proof of evidence of Nicholas Boys Smith MA MPhil

FRSA AoU

on behalf of SAVE EALING’S CENTRE

2

CREATE streets

1. Executive summary

1.1. National and local policy value the preservation of local character and heritage. This is

rational. There is strong evidence that people like living somewhere with a ‘sense of

place’, that architecture that references a local neighbourhood in style, form and mass is

a key part of this and that liking the look of and sense of place inherent in your

neighbourhood is associated with higher levels of happiness and mental health. A

summary character analysis shows how this development will badly undermine this

strong sense of place.

1.2. So-called ‘active’ facades or ‘walking architecture’ with ‘narrow fronts, many doors’ and

a reasonable degree of detailing and ornamentation are associated with better

functioning streets and with better neighbourhood interaction. This proposal makes the

façade less active and is therefore not to be welcomed.

1.3. The design is premised on a super-density, complex and highly engineered built form.

This has been done to maximise value but comes with very material disadvantages for

residents in terms of wellbeing, social relations, childhood development, stress and fear

of crime. Those living in flats in high rise and large complex buildings typified by lifts and

corridors often know fewer of their neighbours, are more stressed and behave less pro-

socially themselves. Problems seem to be greatest for the less well off, those with

children and those who use these types of homes as permanent residences. Some of

these contradict overall healthy NPPF planning aims and some specific planning

policies of the Ealing Plan.

1.4. Current and future high running costs of such a complex super-density development will

in the long term probably be associated with a reduction in levels of affordable housing.

1.5. The architectural description of the buildings contains statements that are simply

historically or typologically incorrect. For example, as a mere statement of art-historical

fact it is not ‘classically defined’ as is asserted. This matters because the proposal is in

fact rather mundane and very similar to many other developments by the same

architects.

3

1.6. The proposals therefore, whilst being arguably in strict compliance with individual

policies within the NPPF and Ealing Policy documents, is contrary to the overall aims

and spirit of these documents and policies.

1.7. Specifically the proposals would appear to be contrary to the underlying intent of NPPF:

paragraphs 17 and 134, policies 69 and 70; of London Plan Policies 7.8 and 7.9; and

Ealing DPD Policies: 1.1(h), 1.1(e) 1.1 (j) , 2.5, 7B, E7.B.6, 7C, E7.4.2, E7.4.4, and 7.4.