Forum Topic

A Note to Hounslow Planning Approval

Between Two and Four stories.That’s the traditional height of buildings in Brentford.Not eight, twelve or twenty four.Get a backbone, tell the developers the limits and stop letting them turn Brentford into Croydon, because the developers are laughing at you behind your back and Croydon is as ugly as sin.

Lorne Gifford ● 3783d18 Comments

That's absolutely correct Raymond.  I don't ask that our local councillors or understand even the most basic fundamentals of thermodynamics, probability based design or energy geopolitics, because I know the technical side of what I do is of no interest to them whatsoever. Similarly the technical side of what they do is of very little interest to me, other than I get the feeling local planning is a somewhat dysfunctional game of who shouts the loudest.The end result is of great interest though, as will be the number of storys/stories what ever is proposed in place of Morrisons may end up as.Lets get this one quite clear.  Morrisons is a single story building that occupies about half the land it sits in, the rest being a rather useful car park.  Just because it sits next to one of the ugliest 1970's tower blocks in the world does not mean that any proposed replacement can also be 16 stories high and made from concrete. Morrisons also sits next to a school and a park, so it is just as valid to say any replacement should be gable roofed and have a big garden.  We will wait to see what the new developer proposes, but I wouldn't place any bets on a nice building with some pleasant green spaces.

Lorne Gifford ● 3778d

I always enjoy reading Adams rational explanation of things in planning. I did write and object to some aspects of local plan and got a deluge of mail in return announcing amendments and changes ( mainly to legal and technical wording)But this is the problem and where there seems to be such an impasse between the residents/public and those in planning or officialdom.I can't spent all my time writing letters and neither can most of us. We have our own occupations and family lives to lead and really, I should not have to worry.I would expect that our local envirions are under careful stewardship and that common sense and pragmatic decisions are made.But as we all know this seems to be a rarity. Brentford is sadly scarred with abominations and half baked low quality 'luxury developments' dotted with the odd few of decent architecture and versatility and indeed a pleasant place to liveI could not make much sense of a lot of the stuff online or indeed follow the protocols of making an objection or observation. It's pretty clear that what makes perfect common sense to local people does not seem to transfer to what officers think or comprehend when making or interpreting policy.It's also pretty obvious that elected councillors would have to be more than familiar with both the legal and technical jargon and protocols. That is clearly beyond the abilities of many. I have to say that includes me. I would be put off by a telephone directory sized report for some aspect of planning ot street lighting and refuse collection.It's very apparent that over the years many councillors on committees do not have a clue on what they are voting through other than "What's the Party line"?But it's not at all satisfying either when ordinary residents get dismissed by officials or indeed councillors when objecting as though they are some sort of ignorant irritant that must be tolerated.Ignorant in protocol and technical detail and so on, Maybe. But that does not mean they are wrong about the fundamental application or the designation of an area.This is so true of the Morrisons site. Common sense tells us that the store and the car park are absolutely vital to the whole economic and social structure of Brentford.But highlighting and opposing the designation of the site by a mere resident who 'knows nothing' of due process and all, gets one nowhere.And surely that lack of redress is not a good thing.

Raymond Havelock ● 3779d

Oh, that would the same Brentford Community Council that thinks my driveway is part of the common land of the Butts Green.  Cost me rather a lot to verify that my drive isn't part of the Butts Green and is perfectly legal for me to drive over!  Not necessarily my favourite group of people.

Lorne Gifford ● 3779d

I'm very happy with the plan. I'm not happy with the way it appears to be ignored.

Lorne Gifford ● 3779d

Brentford Community Council has been doing its best with development proposals and has taken an active part making (hopefully) constructive criticism for the local plan.Why not get in touch or attend their next meeting? Their website is at http://www.brentfordcc.org.uk/They are also a part of the G15+ that Paul mentions.

Kath Richardson ● 3779d

What I don't really understand is if anyone is so unhappy with the Local Plan, why didn't they make representations during the numerous public consultations the plan went through as it emerged or appear at the examination in public chaired by the Inspector (which I have done on numerous occasions on behalf of both developers and third parties) ?.But I concur with Paul, although I would add that sometimes (wearing my professional hat) I do feel that residents can get carried away and it is the job of a professional to strip away the emotional attachment and deal with pure planning matters - there are plenty of times I decline requests to act on behalf of objectors because from a strict planning perspective I don't believe the cost of appointing me will give sufficient weight to a third party objection, particularly if the key issues are subjective issues like design.

Adam Beamish ● 3779d

Thank you Paul, I will

Lorne Gifford ● 3779d

Lorne it may be worth contacting The Isleworth Society who are what I would term pretty ruthless in holding the Council to account on planning matters usually with great successThey are also members of a Borough wide residents organisation called the Group of Fifteen who all work together on planning issues so they be worth contacting as well

Paul Fisher ● 3779d

Yes, it helps a lot, many thanksSo what we need in Brentford then is a friendly solicitor/lawyer through whom we can mount legal objections to development proposals that fail to meet the requirements of our local councils' published plan.  Since the plan is very clear and concise (thank you Mr Curran for that) it is equally easy to identify shortfalls. We will work on a basis that successful challenges include the full professional fees for the lawyer and team that put them together.  Does anyone know, or is, a friendly local solicitor/lawyer? And would anyone else like to volunteer for this loose grouping of concerned residents that are a little fed up with Brenford becoming ever more high rise and densely packed?I guess we will also need a name for the group, so any suggestions?

Lorne Gifford ● 3779d

I'd have to disagree in that there is, in my view, a big difference between how something "should" be determined in accordance with and any kind of actual strict rule/requirement to do so.It's rare in my experience for any planning application to satisfy ever single policy within an adopted plan, usually there's a shortcoming of some degree, but when considered as a whole such applications broadly accord with the plan.Rather than hearing it from me, a quick google search will take you to the planning portal which offers the following definition of a material consideration :Material considerations can include (but are not limited to):- Overlooking/loss of privacy- Loss of light or overshadowing- Parking- Highway safety- Traffic- Noise- Effect on listed building and conservation area- Layout and density of building- Design, appearance and materials- Government policy- Disabled persons' access- Proposals in the Development Plan- Previous planning decisions (including appeal -decisions)- Nature conservationHowever, issues such as loss of view, or negative effect on the value of properties are not material considerations.In my experience what third parties often don't give weight to is the previous planning history of a site and in particular what is known as the 'fallback' position, such an what could be done without requiring planning permission, or an extant planning permission that could be implemented but is yet to be, or the impacts of the status quo against the impacts of the proposed development and whether there would be any change to those impacts and if so whether that change would be sufficiently significant to be harmful.But you are correct in that it is possible for anyone to seek a High Court challenge against the granting of planning permission, on legal failings alone, which indeed include arguments that a Council hasn't give sufficient weight to the local plan or another material consideration (or that a Council has given weight to something which isn't a material planning consideration).Hope that helps.

Adam Beamish ● 3779d

Thank you Adam for clarifying the context and weight that exists behind the Local Plan, and of course my mistake for critising poor grammar and then doing exactly the same.  You state ‘the Plan’ is a requirement that that planning applications should be determined in accordance with.‘Requirement’ indicates a firm rule, (something that is required instead of optional).  ‘Material considerations’ though is very vague and doesn't really say anything other than loss of profit. Can you clarify then that if the council approve a development that doesn't fit the spirit and context of the plan that the ‘average man on the street’, as you put it, can sue them for negligence of duty? 

Lorne Gifford ● 3779d

Isn't "story" just American English?

Philippa Bond ● 3779d

PS - nice bit of bad grammar from me, my post should say planning policies are neither rules nor guidelines, rather than "policy are"...see we all do it occasionally :-)

Adam Beamish ● 3779d

That would be the same Councillor Curran you criticised in your opening post about his grammar skills, despite your own post referring to 'stories' - pot & kettle spring to mind, sorry but as planner the misuse of the word 'stories' instead of 'storeys' is a gripe of mine and I was amused at how you started your thread off with it and then proceeded to criticise A N Other's grammar.Obviously I appreciate the average person in the street doesn't understand the nuances of planning, but adopted planning policy are neither rules nor guidelines actually.  The regulations say that planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.Also, just to clarify the context, this local plan isn't something that LBH has cobbled together between themselves in a matter of days.  It's been in the pipeline for several years, been through various public consultations and revisions before a independent examination in public chaired by a Inspector who subject to some modifications (which were made) found the plan content to be sound and therefore should be formally adopted.I'm not saying it's the best publication in the world, I've been reviewing it as it emerged in its various states over the last couple of years, but it has been through a robust external scrutiny process, just like every local plan has to go through before being adopted for development control purposes.

Adam Beamish ● 3779d

I emailed Mr Curran to ask him about the local plan and how it appears to be very loose guidelines rather than something that might actually be followed.  2 days later no reply.If the local plan is guidelines that can be circumvented by simply using one of those buzzwords like 'enabling' then presumably the same is true for all Hounslow council rules.'I was stuck in the yellow box because it was enabling me to get across the road junction. You know, the one by the bridge that is always solid because you allowed all these new high rises in Brentford without making the roads any bigger'.'I shall only be paying band A council tax from now on because it will enable me to support my local community by eating out more often.''I shan't pay the parking fine because I was only parked there for 20 minutes. Yes I know I have a 2 minute allowance, but that's just a guideline.'Guidelines or rules - you can't have both.

Lorne Gifford ● 3780d

It's the hypocrisy in the article on here about the local plan that gets me.  It's just hot air written by arrogant local councillors. The picture showing the 'vision of Brentford' is the Lionel Road development; way to tall, exceeding all density recommendations and 100% aimed at professionals.  0% affordable homes and 0% family friendly, and approved by our local council. Are all our councillors graduates of the Midvale school of the Gifted?The Local Plan:..new developments are in keeping with the borough’s heritage, natural environment and open spaces...be sympathetic to existing homes and businesses.....target for 40 per cent to be at affordable levels.Councillor Steve Curran, Leader of Hounslow Council, said: “This Local Plan has been meticulously created over the past two years...“Of course all new developments will have to pass the same rigorous planning processes as they do now ......This is a once in a generation opportunity.”So, Mr Curran, 2 years to write that and you didn't even get the basic grammar right.  How about standing tall and living up to those words.

Lorne Gifford ● 3782d

Well said Lorne, and when people say they want a supermarket with parking facilities, that's exactly what they mean. Not a mini-supermarket or 3 or 4 over priced shops that cater for the 'new' residents who can afford the half million it will cost to by a 2 bed in the new developments.

Keith Iddon ● 3783d

And when a developer says Iconic, Landmark or Enabling, please try and understand that in English that means Disproportionate, Sticks-Out-Like-A-sore-Thumb, or Breaking-All-The-Rules.

Lorne Gifford ● 3783d