Forum Topic

No affordable housing in Brentford FC Development

The report on the front page of this site regarding the signing of the Planning Agreement by Brentford FC and Hounslow Council for the Lionel Road Development says:"Although the agreement has been finalised the actual amounts that need to be paid by the club as contributions towards transport improvement and extra education provision have yet to be calculated as they depend on the number of bedrooms in the flats and the PROPORTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING in the development."This report gives the impression that there will be affordable housing within the development. However, it appears that this is incorrect. Councillor John Todd and others have pointed out that there will be no affordable housing included in the new development. Planning permission has been given by Hounslow Council to the developers for 910 new apartments with no requirement for affordable or social housing.

David Giles ● 4242d35 Comments

Good question. Any views Phil?

Guy Lambert ● 4224d

"It is a scandal but one which is sadly allowed to continue."The quesion is, who is responsible for allowing it to continue. Surely the CEO is accountable?

Steve Taylor ● 4224d

Absolutely true.

Phil Andrews ● 4225d

But in no way would S106 monies be any good to tackle the housing deficiency we have in this country.

Vanessa Smith ● 4225d

Section 106 money is intended to offset the negative effects of a development.  Pleading poverty would be like an employer pleading he cannot pay his staff any wages - it is a necessary consideration which must be factored in when assessing the viability of any project.It gets "lost" because as a local authority we have not realised the potential of Section 106 and have not been sufficiently well organised to make best use of the incoming monies.  It is a scandal but one which is sadly allowed to continue.

Phil Andrews ● 4225d

The trouble with Section 106 money for things is it sometimes seems to get lost and it also sometimes seems to be able to be wriggled out of by pleading poverty of some kind.

Philippa Bond ● 4226d

What a joke, a pitiful amount of money being made available and it's 'up for grabs' - what a way to really seriously tackle the crisis we have. Looking at the figures for building by the councils who got a few bob it certainly ain't going to make a scrap of difference, pathetic. There has to be a co-ordinated and absolutely massive building programme which will require real commitment from the government, not this faffing around which in effect is sod-all and does nothing to help the problems we have.

Vanessa Smith ● 4227d

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/millions-up-for-grabs-to-build-affordable-homes

Philippa Bond ● 4227d

Exactly and those people who just get up and leave the picnic table in the park and expect someone else to clear up after them - who are they?  I suspect that many probably most of them are those people who aspire or whose parents aspire for them to do something other than pick up and clear up the mess left by other people.

Philippa Bond ● 4228d

No Keith not aimed at you, I was only trying to make the point we can't all be Chief Executives, architects, doctors, dentists etc. we will always need the people who do the less glamorous but essential jobs that make our lives much more pleasant. I wouldn't do some of them even if they did pay a lot of dosh, and I suspect neither would a lot of the people who don't give a toss about anyone else! But those people deserve just as much consideration when it comes to being able to afford a roof over their head.

Vanessa Smith ● 4229d

I trust that post isn't aimed at me Vanessa. I couldn't agree more about the low esteem, wage wise, that people who keep our nation clean and working on time are held.If bin men and road sweepers went on strike for a month, we'd all soon realise their worth more.

Keith Iddon ● 4229d

Who's Jack and why sod him?

Bob Crongle ● 4229d

Well said Vanessa, but I'd add private sector jobs too - for example in retail, hotels, cleaning, delivery services, warehousing, care homes etc etc.And if you read the press the supermarkets (Morrisons and Asda at least) are busy firing middle management so there will be even less middle income jobs than today. And I bet there are very few Morrisons workers on 60K+.I'm all for training and improving yourself but some people will still have to clean hotel rooms and they will still need somewhere to live.

Guy Lambert ● 4230d

It never ceases to amaze me how selfish and self centred some of the people who post here can be. Not everyone can be a graduate, there are jobs which make life so much more pleasant for all of us, but that need to be done and which do not pay very well. Where on earth do you think any of us would be without dustmen, street sweepers, sewage workers, those who do all the unpleasant but necessary jobs in local authorities. None of these jobs are highly paid but very, very important. Where do you suggest these workers live let alone save for a deposit for a house and perhaps bring up a family? We have a divided society and to me it is just plain wrong, we have a Mayor happy to sell our capital city to the highest bidder, and a government that looks after its own, it's a bloody disgrace.

Vanessa Smith ● 4230d

I think the average wage in Britain is £26 k but in London it is supposed to be substantially higher. About 32k I think.

Keith Iddon ● 4230d

The job spec seems to require someone who is pretty efficient with all manner of systems. It looks like a con to me - cheap labour required.The bloke who wrote the advert should learn basic English and how to spell if he's peddling apprenticeships that offer these two "skills".

Bob Crongle ● 4230d

Dear  BobSorry but this basic mis selling. This is not an full time job but an  apprenticement and that is why it pays so low. However overtime the person who learns from this role can earn over 60k in IT

Rakesh Patel ● 4230d

Here's the first one that comes up in the job section on this site - sounds great at £7800 per annum.How can this even be legal for a full time post?Location:Brentford (TW8)Salary:£7800.00 per year Date posted:30/06/2014 13:55Job type:Permanent Company:QA ApprenticeshipsEmployer Details:My client provide flexible IT service and Telecoms to suit they client business need. Established 10 years ago, has a prestigious client set, operates exclusively in the SMB's across London and surrounding areas.Due to our expansion we're looking to take on an additional Administrative Co-ordinator to join our team.Job Details:The role is office based in Brentford west London and working within their existing team    Manager the fulfilment of new mobile phone contracts - coordinating this with the network    Place orders for new mobile phone hardware    Arrange shipment of hardware and sim cards to customers    Manage all fulfilment customer service    Support salesmen in dealing with minor customer service issues    Reception. You will be a member of a reception group of 4 people, Answer customer telephone calls    Log IT support calls in the help desk system    General office administration - ad hoc and regular admin task e.g.Skills required:    Strong administration skills with desire to help customers    Methodical and organised with a strong attention to detail at all times    Proficiency in Microsoft Excel would be beneficial (e.g. formatting and formulas)    Polite and confident telephone manner    Must have excellent written and spoken EnglishQualifications required:England - ideally 5 GCSE Grades (C and above) or equivalent, including Maths and English.Training to be provided:England - Business Level 3 Apprenticeship - | City & Guilds Certificate/Diploma in Business & Administration | Microsoft Office Specialist (MOS) | One optional day from the QA Professional Development catalogue | Functional Skills Level 2Apprenticeship duration:12 monthsWorking week:37.5 hours (Monday - Friday, 9 - 5:30)About QA apprenticeships:QA Apprenticeships is an Ofsted Outstanding provider of IT apprenticeships. 94% of QA Apprentices secure permanent employment after finishing their IT apprenticeship. Multi-award winning - Apprenticeship Programme of the Year 2012, 2013 & 2014, Microsoft UK Partner of the Year 2013 Special Commendation - and the first IT apprenticeships business rated Ofsted Outstanding in all areas.Future prospects:94% of QA Apprentices secure permanent employment after finishing their IT apprenticeship. Additionally may be opportunities to undertake further learning such as Higher apprenticeships.It takes just five minutes to apply for an IT apprenticeship with QA and begin your IT career with great prospects today.Contact:Aryan KhanRef:Totaljobs/2312

Bob Crongle ● 4230d

"There are companies in Brentfiord where lots of employees are paid twice that at least. But one needs to be qualified. Which actually means working hard from yearly years in life."Really? Can you name some? The median earnings in London last year were around £33000 and with the earnings growth George Osborne is so keen to boast about that would be about £33500 now.In any case even with a couple both earning £50K they would struggle to raise enough on a mortgage to buy a modest property in Brentford unless they started with £100K of savings.

Guy Lambert ● 4230d

Vanessa, comparing the country average salary with London prices is not very fair, is it?There are companies in Brentfiord where lots of employees are paid twice that at least. But one needs to be qualified. Which actually means working hard from yearly years in life.

Alex Shpinkov ● 4230d

Oh well, no affordable houses..move on with life.Getting a job that pays above £26k in London isn't that hard, you just have to leave your door step and apply. The problem with society today, everyone reads the newspaper and believes it.....and also they want the government to pay for everything.

Rakesh Patel ● 4230d

Phil - I wholeheartedly agree

Guy Lambert ● 4231d

I always have to laugh when my dear father, bless him, tells me how much easier it is today to buy a house that in was when he first moved out of the parental home.He was earning about £2k p.a. them, and bought his first property for something in the region of £2,500 I believe.  To be in the same position a first-time buyer would now need to be earning in the region of £250,000 per year.  Secure, full-time employment with fair pay and basic rights is fast becoming the exception rather than the rule.  Building more homes will help alleviate the problem and we should certainly do it, but the problem runs far deeper than that.  It comes down to fundamentals and to how our society is structured, because if current trends are not reversed the whole thing will at some point become entirely unsustainable.

Phil Andrews ● 4231d

I do find your comments somewhat misinterpret what I said. I don't agree that the current generation 'want everything for free' and previous generations at least had property to choose from - something that people now certainly don't unless they earn massively big bucks. The average wage in this country is £26,000 you need to be earning at least 2 to 3 times that to stand any chance of buying in Greater London. The prospect of buying is just out of reach now for so many people in ordinary jobs, and there is no alternative in the rental market which also demands high earnings and takes such a high proportion of people's income. Successive governments have failed to allow building on a large enough scale - starting with Thatcher, and now we face a bigger housing crisis than we had after the last war. You may not care about anyone else, or how your offspring will be able to live in the area they were born and bred in - some of us do. If only it were as simple as work harder - (where ARE all those jobs?) how can people be expected to save with zero hour contracts and so many on minimum wages? As for 'holding Brentford back' - it certainly doesn't need my help in that respect.

Vanessa Smith ● 4231d

Oh well, no affordable housing.So what. The scheme is awful anyway, part buy part rent is bad for the buyer and the 5% deposit scheme is bad, as both have huge interest rates on the mortgage. You are better off staying in rented for a little while longer and save up and spend wisely. To the point of Vanessa, if you don’t like it, then do something about it rather than moaning. You are no different to the people who have held Brentford back for years. We are trying to make the area nice and respectable and then people are trying to cheapen it with comments like, we need help to buy…….Simple solution Save better and work harder like our past generations. The OAP of today did so much for the current generation. The current generation want everything for free…..Lets get behind Brentford FC, and the regeneration of Brentford, otherwise all we will be is Brentford next to Ealing, Richmond, Kew and Chiswick.

Rakesh Patel ● 4231d

And now Ruth Cadbury is 'demanding government action' because of the lack of affordable housing in the borough. And which planning department approved the new BFC stadium?Oh dear, it wasn't me Guv!

John Appleby ● 4237d

I think that in this case Hounslow Council was more than supportive of Mr Matthew Benham, who as the owner of Brentford FC, is the developer and who stands to make a very large amount of money out of this very high, very dense development in an already crowded area with severe traffic and parking problems. This development would not normally have been allowed were it not for a fact that it contains a football stadium. But as we all know "football is more important than religion " and for some " it is the only religion".

David Giles ● 4240d

I agree that Councils don't bend over backwards for developers.  On many occasions over my years in the private sector I've found that Councils find it easier to refuse applications, than actually engage with applicants (be there Mr. and Mrs. Bloggs or a major developer) to resolve any issues and approve an amended application.  To some extent the negative mindset has changed, but not completely, and as Vanessa alludes to Council resources being what they are I do to some extent appreciate that Planning Officers struggle to find the time to engage with applicants in the proactive and positive manner national guidance encourages.I'm not entirely sure that I'd agree that the system favours  developers, or indeed Councils or third parties, but certainly Councils have to be very careful about their reasons for refusing applications, given that if such refusals are based on reasons the Council can't substantiate  , costs are likely to be awarded against the Council for unreasonable behaviour.  Equally on occasion I've seen independent Inspectors dismiss appeals on subjective loss of amenity grounds where the Council's EHO and the applicants concur that there's no harm, but where local residents have disputed this, so it isn't all one way traffic.

Adam Beamish ● 4242d

I don't think it is really fair to say that LBH 'falls over backwards' for developers. The system has always favoured the developer and with this government will even more in the future. Councils have never been, and certainly aren't now, able to mount expensive legal challenges, you see it all comes down to money and they haven't got any. And to be honest how could anyone have known about the Highways PFI when those lights were installed? I do agree about the maintenance factor though, things start off looking great then are neglected and end up as eyesores. We had a similar problem when the RFU stadium wanted to hold concerts, in the end they managed to reach an agreement, and it really hasn't made that much of a difference, and as far as I know there are none planned for this year. The World Cup in 2015 of course is another matter!

Vanessa Smith ● 4242d

Section 106 is a waste of money.Very expensive bespoke street lighting paid for by S106 in Boston Manor Road lasted less than 8 years to be ripped out by the PfI.Other S106 stuff is also gone or neglected as no-one ever factors in maintenance.It is truly astonishing that LBH fall over backwards for Brentford FC and developers for truly inappropriate developments, and yet will risk parks amenities allotments and the like to build social housing and schools on.Take away all these amenities and what do we have? Nothing. Just shops and chicken coop dwellings.Life is not just about school years, it goes on longer than that and other things, like allotments, parks, playing fields are vital for some sort of quality of life in an urban area.I'll lay odds that within a few years, the well heeled of this new development will bring about legal injunctions to prevent any other use of the new stadium other than BFC fixtures.They won't want the noise, congestion and inconvenience, but will have the means to curb it.

Anthony Waller ● 4242d

The problem with Hounslow's forward plan is that it doesn't factor in community basics; health provision and schooling topping the list. It's all very well to continue allowing developers to build "Utopia" (money, investment) in our midst but the moral duty of the local authority should surely be to develop the community and this cannot happen when other/commercial/short term economic interests are allowed to take priority.Put by the land/space/budget for the basics and the developers will have to follow. Allow the current "Luxury Brentford" boom to continue and we will end up in a ghetto.

Bob Crongle ● 4242d

"Personally affordable housing is OK, but my view is if want to live in London then you need to pay the money. All affordable housing has done is artificially inflated house prices, as someone somewhere has to pay for the difference".First this tag of 'affordable housing' is a misnomer if ever there was one, just who is it 'affordable' for? In some areas you'd have to be earning colossal wages to be able to consider it. Second it is so-called 'social housing' that is vitally important, housing you can rent for a reasonable amount that a normal ordinary person on the average wage of £26,000 p.a. could afford that is. As for the comment if you want to live in London you have to pay - talk about selfish, does it not occur to you that these over inflated ridiculous prices are just plain wrong? That the government should be doing something to stop this and stop foreign investors. People born and bred here surely are entitled to have some expectation that they will actually be able to live in the city they come from and that they work in and contribute to. Boris didn't help by doing away with the percentage contribution of social housing that developers had to ensure were part of developments, but then again when didn't he roll over for the money?

Vanessa Smith ● 4242d

ChapsI was merely pointing out that the report on the front page may have given the misleading impression that there will be some affordable housing in the development. It has now been confirmed that there will not be any affordable or social housing in the Lionel Road Development. Many will be surprised that Hounslow's Labour Council did not insist on some affordable or social housing. However Hounslow Council has obviously prioritised the building of a football stadium ovr affordable or social housing.I wonder if the Section 106 contribution will be higher in view of the fact that there will be no social or affordable housing ?

David Giles ● 4242d

HiFrom what I remember, Brentford FC was very open about not having affordable housing. This just sounds like the media writing one thing and hear another. People have their own views on what is right and not and if affordable housing is good or not. Personally affordable housing is OK, but my view is if want to live in London then you need to pay the money. All affordable housing has done is artificially inflated house prices, as someone somewhere has to pay for the difference. I think what they have done is fine, but that’s my view and of course people will have different views.

Nemesh Patel ● 4242d

"No affordable housing in Brentford FC Development"That's terrible, I'm sure the London Plan says there should be a presumption of 50% affordable housing.  No, hang on, it did say that, but it was removed shortly after Boris Johnson became Mayor, because property developers asked him to."The Planning for a Better London document confirms the mayor’s intention to ditch his predecessor’s 50% affordable housing target while vowing to build 50,000 affordable homes over the next three years....Johnson said the existing London Plan was “unwieldy” and insisted it was in need of revision to give proper account to local needs while also being easy for developers and local boroughs to use."So, David, are you in favour of putting a robust affordable housing target back into the London Plan, or letting the market decide?  Cards on the table time.

Thomas Barry ● 4242d