Forum Topic

The Morrisons Site

Anyone in Hounslow Council read the press release from Essential Living, the developer that has bought the Morrisons site.  It only talks about building homes.  It’s here if you’ve missed it:http://www.essentialliving.uk.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Essential-Living-acquires-west-London-site-to-deliver-vital-rental-homes-in-Hounslow.pdfAnyone in Hounslow Council listen to Radio 4 this morning?:‘The government is bringing in legislation that says new developments must have a designated proportion that are to be sold as affordable homes.’ Not rented, but sold.  That’s the end of Essential Livings business mode then.  Anyone in Hounslow Council read the Local Plan that they have just published:‘The Morrisons site is an important town centre location that can only be developed with a maximum 25% housing. At least 75% of floor area must be retail space, and it must maintain appropriate town centre parking.’ The words in the plan might differ, but the implication is perfectly clear and therefore accountable.So the company that bought the Morrisons site appears to have a problem; it’s business model of high rise, high density flats solely for rental is (a) about to become illegal, and (b) will not meet the requirement of the Hounslow Council Local Plan.Can we trust our local councillors and Council will make this abundantly clear to the developer?And in making it clear to the developer, please, Hounslow Council, bear in mind that the freedom of information act of 2000 means all discussions have to be made freely available if requested.  I will be requesting this if you don’t follow the local plan to the letter and to the implied spirit, so I’d like you to keep it all safe and sound. None of that ‘we’ve mislaid it’ nonsense.  You spend enough each month on IT and computer services that I expect all correspondence to be fully categorised, backed-up and securely stored at off site servers.Can I also ask that the investhounslow web site, a web site run by the council, remove the phrase ‘we’re up for being brave’ as the tag line for attracting developers. The phrase gives the impression the council does not pay due regard to the wishes of the people that live here, or to its stated requirements as detailed in the Local Plan.

Lorne Gifford ● 3772d26 Comments

Lorne it could be 20 stories high and the local councillors would still spin it as great newsYou only have to listen to the silence regarding the zero affordable housing proposed for the Lionel Rd development

Paul Fisher ● 3467d

It's still 12 stories high though, still all for rent, still not even remotely in line with the Local Plan.

Lorne Gifford ● 3467d

Lorneyou're a bit behind the curve with this - the press release is from last September and there have been a number of consultations with local councillors and residents groups, and a public exhibition, since!The plan is to have extensive retail on the ground floor including a new Morrisons (or other supermarket operator) as well as some smaller retail units, with parking provided underground.As to the Housing and Planning act 2016, whilst detailed regulations are yet to be finalised, the Government's consultaion document [https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/starter-homes-regulations-technical-consultation] seeks to make provision for this type of development as follows "We propose that private rented sector developments could contribute to starter home provision and the requirement should be met through an off site contribution for delivery of starter homes." [pp15/16]In the initial proposals, 100% of the floor area at ground level is dedicated to retail, other than some public amenity space. We have not yet seen a formal planning application, which is expected shortly. Local groups and councillors, whilst recognising this as potentially a very positive development, have some concerns with the proposals and we wait to see what is actually put forward for planning permission.

Guy Lambert ● 3467d

12 stories of rented flats! That doesn't sound like fostering family and community values, developing a cohesive society, encouraging long term residency, or having buildings in scale with their surroundings and historical context. It doesn't sound like this development meets a single one of the requirements of that very expensive Local Plan LBH put together and now ignores.

Lorne Gifford ● 3468d

That's perfect. Thank you Guy.  We are, of course, working toward the same goal of Brentford being a lovely place to live.  Lets hope the police station becomes some much needed new schooling.

Lorne Gifford ● 3769d

Lorne, thanks for the kind words. Yes, people are very suspicious of 'Hounslow Council' whether that be the 'obviously corrupt' councillors or the officers. Whether they have any justification for this suspicion is another matter.  I might not agree with some of the things officers or fellow councillors do but I've found no evidence of a lack of good faith. There are frequent differences of opinion amongst residents, between councils and central or London government, between what we would like to happen and what the law allows.For myself, I have no difficulty at all with the council being up for being brave, though I think you overstate its significance. I think the 'Golden Mile' is a heap better now than it was 20 years ago because it has attracted investment. GWQ for example is a pretty good development in a challenging place. I am eager for the police station site and the Ballymore site to be developed because it's hard to imagine how they could be made worse.The point of the local plan, if I understand it, is to guide development and you can have a firm commitment from me that I'll endeavour for all development to abide by it. I don't think I'm capable of making a firm commitment to the outcome because I don't have the power to do so, and nor does the council. The Mayor, the Secretary of State, government legislation and the courts all to a greater or lesser degree have powers that can overrule the council's wishes.

Guy Lambert ● 3769d

Let me try a different approach; Firstly, I am very appreciative that you read and comment of this particular forum, plus publish a weekly update on activities. To me that shows a level of engagement that is exceptional and a great credit.Secondly, I am equally appreciative of your understanding that people are very suspicious that Hounslow Council acts in its own best interest rather than ours and appears to be agile in clouding motives and justifications.  Perhaps unfortunately then, the localgov.uk website states that every service provided by a Council is done so in the name of the local councillors.  This implies that it is yourself and your colleagues who need to provide the firm commitments that the council will then have to abide by.So how about that firm commitment that all development in Brentford will abide by the Local Plan?  And can we get rid of the 'we're up for being brave' tag line from the investhounslow web site.

Lorne Gifford ● 3769d

We obviously have a different interpretation of rude, so you wouldn't complain if I commented that you're arrogant and spout hot air.Check out the word 'historic'. In this context I imagine it means all the arrears since council tax was invented in approx the 1990s.You interpretation of the Investhounslow site doesn't accord with mine. There are 21 pages of development sites there, many of them derelict or with very poor quality buildings. Perhaps you'd prefer to let them all rot but I'd prefer to see them used to house people, provide jobs, or add to the vibrancy of the area. That doesn't mean tower blocks everywhere (as the local plan states, very clearly)

Guy Lambert ● 3769d

Using a headline 97.8% success in council tax collection directly contradicts the information provided by those journalists that have looked into council funding and spending. I quote:'Hounslow Council has written off nearly a third of the council tax it was owed, new figures show - the highest rate in England.  Civic Centre bean counters gave up chasing £9.1m, or 31.7 per cent, of the council's historic arrears last year.'97.8% implies £2.5 million not paid. The quote above implies £30 million hasn't been paid. So which is right?My comments about the Local Plan, far from being rude, are a reflection on the level of anxiety this whole mega development of Brentford is causing.  For heavens sake, the investhouslow web site states as the tag line to attract developers, 'we're up for being brave'.  What on earth is that all about? Brave about what? There is a plan, a council to enforce it and developers that want to ignore it. Does it mean lets be brave and stick to the plan or does it mean lets be brave and ride roughshod over the people that live there?

Lorne Gifford ● 3769d

"Are you absolutely sure about the integrity of that 97.8% claim?"It's not a 'claim' it's the figure as reported by the ONS, reflected on the government website. I find it unlikely that the ONS would fix the figures to make Hounslow look better.As to being rude, you have been known post highly insulting stuff on here such as "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"I try to turn the other cheek at the repeated insults and always false allegations bandied about freely on here but there's a level of nonsense which I occasionally find intolerable.

Guy Lambert ● 3769d

http://www.getwestlondon.co.uk/news/local-news/hounslows-91m-council-tax-write-off-7389530

Lorne Gifford ● 3769d

Are you absolutely sure about the integrity of that 97.8% claim?  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2806474/How-debt-mountatin-unpaid-council-tax-worth-450-family-parts-country.html

Lorne Gifford ● 3769d

No need to be rude Guy, and actually it is really quite difficult to work out exactly what goes on with Hounslow Council finances.  I know you publish accounts, because I've read them, but they happen to be the most complex and difficult set of accounts I've ever come across.  Is that deliberate or symptomatic of local councils in general?So, you were very quick to cut me down for a mistake on council tax non payment rates. A mistake, not a made up figure, as I have integrity and do not make things up. I notice though that you're very quiet on everything else.  Can I assume the rest of my analysis is correct?You were also very quick to cut down my original post here about the Morrisons site, saying it was uncalled for and would add to the anxiety.  Well, there's a very simple way to stop the anxiety in this case.  A nice clear statement saying the Local Plan will be honoured would do it.

Lorne Gifford ● 3769d

Lorne, I don't know whether you continually promulgate rubbish to deliberately mislead readers, or whether you just can't read statistics.Council tax collection rates are not very difficult and are published on the Gov.uk website, herehttps://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/collection-rates-for-council-tax-and-non-domestic-rates-in-england-2014-to-2015Hounslow's rate of collection last year was 97.8%, up from 96.7% the previous year. Hounslow is better than average outer London Boroughs (96.8%) and better than the national average for England (97%)We should be proud of this aspect of our council's performance, rather than slagging it off with made up figures.

Guy Lambert ● 3769d

Wasn't there a supermarket included in the Ballymore proposals for south-of-High-Street? That's years away though, assuming it ever happens at all.

Bryan Betts ● 3770d

Not wanting to off topic, but the failure to collect council tax is quite staggering. Nationally 3% of council tax is not collected.  Here in Hounslow it's 17%.

Lorne Gifford ● 3771d

I think time will tell, but hopefully a supermarket will remain in Brentford (Not Aldi or Lidi, just my preference)The Tesco is Osterley is quite far and the Sainsburys in Chiswick is too far as well. We as locals, need to keep on this to make sure the new site fits our needs + helping Brentford development and move on...not everyone will be happy.

David Rose ● 3771d

The investhouslow web site and their 'we're up for being brave' tag line implies exactly that.As for the plea we can expect over cuts then my response will be:Council income appears to be; Council Tax £110m, Business Rates £50m, Parking fines £5m, Housing rents £36m, Government grants £210m. Total income of about £410m Government grants are due to fall by about 10% in total by 2020, so that’s means the council can expect around £20m per year lost income by then.However the council says the population will rise by 10%, so that makes an extra £11m council tax revenue.  No doubt businesses rates, parking fines and housing rents will increase by the same amount so that’s another extra £9m.All-in-all then £20m expected to be lost per year by 2020 and about the same amount gained.What cuts are we talking about then?  Here’s a thought, £18m uncollected council tax per year! That’s 1 in 6 homes. Now it’s not like the council doesn’t know where those people live.

Lorne Gifford ● 3771d

Oh Paul, you're even more cynical than I am - I genuinely don't think the Morrisons site will ever (at least in our lifetimes) become solely residential.

Adam Beamish ● 3771d

I think we all know deep down what will happen to this site and after any form of retail is abandoned for the promise of three or four shoebox social housing units to the Council we will have the excuses by local councillors that they tried their best but it would be too expensive to fight and they have to find cuts of 60 million a week/fortnight/year in case you did not know

Paul Fisher ● 3771d

Thank you, need humour in planning sometimes !.

Adam Beamish ● 3771d

Read the existing thread and thought it needed some clarification.2018 is only a couple of years away and before you know it everyone will be saying, 'well why didn't you object earlier'Yes, Adam is excellent. His responses are both informative and with an occasional good level of humour in them.

Lorne Gifford ● 3771d

Lorne, it might benefit you to read the existing thread on this matter rather than starting a new one and causing further anxiety.We do not know what the new owners will be seeking in terms of height of any new development on the Morrisons site but we have had a clear statement that - Morrisons have a lease to 2018- Essential Living are talking to Morrisons about extending the lease- Their preferred solution is for Morrisons to remain- Whatever happens, their preference and expectation is for a supermarket-led developmentI'll leave it to Adam to comment on Hounslow's approach but as I've already said ad nauseam local councillors would fight hard to keep Morrisons (or equivalent) if it became necessary to do so. The evidence is that a fight will not be required.

Guy Lambert ● 3771d

Quick answers :(a) lots of weight.  But as I've said before it's rare to work on a scheme that satisfies every single component of the local plan, often it is a balancing exercise, e.g. the Council's Design Officer doesn't like the balconies proposed as part of a housing scheme but the relevant local and London plan policies require all new units to have private amenity space, however on balance because of the proximity of the site to a local park the Council would rather see the balconies removed (a real life example of a scheme I am currently working on).(b) no Council is a push over, regardless of how the public perception may be different.  (c) the views of third parties is a material planning objection.  Inevitably to some extent there's always going to be discord between neighbours and developers, and that can equally apply to proposals for a single storey rear extension to a house as it can to a major residential development.  There's lots of schemes I see (and some I work on) that I don't necessarily like as a member of the general public, but with my professional hat on I know tick enough of the boxes to get permission.  Don't forget most planning consultants (including myself) work on behalf of objectors too and are able to identify shortcomings in schemes.  To be honest though, the number of 'grumpy residents' isn't really relevant, it is all about the substance of their representations, some residents do their credibility no favour whatsoever by making sensational or absurd accusations/objections which have no basis in fact.This would be the same government that last year introduced a threshold of schemes of not more than 10 units/1000 square metres of commercial floorspace not having to provide any on-site affordable/off-site affordable contribution, regardless of what some Council's adopted policies require (e.g. Richmond's local plan requires an off-site affordable housing contribution on a 1 unit scheme) ?.  But which was recently the subject of a successful High Court challenge, although the Planning Minister made it clear on Monday that he be re-introducing that threshold either through an appeal or revised legislation.  That's why I say it is hot air at this time, and the definition of affordable housing actually covers more than just the element you've cited.

Adam Beamish ● 3771d

oh good.  How much weight do planning consultants give to the following:a) what a local plan states. Is it a case of 'ignore what's been written as it's just for the sheep that live there and we can easily get around it'b) the level of accountability that local councils require for a developer too stick to the plan.  And in this respect what's Hounslows performance? Are they 'easy peasy push over', 'will actively want you to build as many flats as possible', or 'will require you to follow the guidance as stated in the local plan'?c) the number of grumpy residents that live near where a whopping great block of flats is trying to be built'Final point wrt what's to stop someone buying and then renting; the law.  The definition of affordable housing is to legally become housing sold to local residents for at least 20% less than market value for the sole purpose of the resident living in it.Don't know about calling it hot-air, but 'must be sold as affordable housing' is a very explicit statement.  So explicit I might venture to call it cold-as-ice

Lorne Gifford ● 3772d

And who exactly is going to buy these 'affordable' homes ?.  What's to stop a provider purchasing the homes and then renting them out by way of a variety of different tenures as most providers do now ?.Didn't listen to Radio 4 this morning but usual hot air which simply doesn't work on the ground.Let's not be silly, Essential Living haven't bought the site without being aware of what's in the local plan, which has after all being in the public arena for a good 18 months.  Companies like Essential Living have planning consultants like myself either in-house or external who will been advising them for a long time as to what the development potential of the site is and also the relevant policy constraints.

Adam Beamish ● 3772d