Forum Topic

Planning application submitted for the Morrisons site

You just simply could not make it up and lets hope the Councillors reject it straight away

Paul Fisher ● 3335d41 Comments

A public meeting is welcome but more notice is required to assemble an agenda so all interested parties can contribute and prepare accordingly, and so the council can gauge the level of participation to arrange an appropriate size venue? Do we know why the developers won't attend surely they should be in attendance?

Martin Case ● 3305d

Doesn't that just say everything.Developers with contempt and arrogance leaving it to Officers to do the dirty work and Councillors caught in the crossfire.Well worth reading Jeremy Corbyn's speech as well as some others that discussed this very type of development today at the Fabian Society annual conference.Raises the question why are some Labour authorities making this kind of development unacceptable and others playing into the hands of developers with the wrong kind of developments. And why is Corbyn's rather sensible policy not channelling down to this borough and others.Little wonder no-one can trust Labour. Two left feet.

Raymond Havelock ● 3306d

Theo is organising a public meeting. Unfortunately it seems the developers will not attend - hence the delay in confirming it. I will not mention a date because the venue has yet to confirm availability but we are hoping for late January.

Guy Lambert ● 3306d

Ray, the Friends of St Paul's and others are looking to try and organise a public meeting on the proposed developments in Brentford. Apparently there was meant to be a public meet organised by Theo Dennison in January, but at the moment this doesn't look as though it will materialise hence our actions. I'll keep you updated on this but also check the front page within the next week for a statement from us us and other concerned parties.

Martin Case ● 3307d

ay, the Friends of St Paul's and others are looking to try and organise a public meeting on the proposed developments in Brentford. Apparently there was meant to be a public meet organised by Theo Dennison in January, but at the moment this doesn't look as though it will materialise hence our actions. I'll keep you updated on this but also check the front page within the next week for a statement from us us and other concerned parties.

Martin Case ● 3307d

The deadline of 12th Jan has passed fro objections, observations and concerns to be lodged over this development.This coupled with the Watermans development will in a great  many ways will have a far greater and wide ranging impact on a huge number of residences, businesses and residents than the Chiswick curve ever will.The fact that this has also been lodged during a period where the distractions of christmas events and public holidays, is really an indicator of how despicable a proposal this really is and really poor that just one notice is publicly displayed on a lamp post in Back Lane. Not one home likely to be affected has received a notice and yet we get notices about an incinerator over a mile away!The whole thing really whiffs . And has the potential to destroy Brentfoed community and local economy.The fact that this System Reference: P/2016/5573Planning Reference: 00607/228-246/P1This almost impossible to access deluge of gobbledegook But reservations can be still submitted.

Raymond Havelock ● 3308d

And not so long ago local, regional and national planning policy was very much anti-terrace housing. That's why we have a string of late 60's prefab concrete tower blocks. That policy was shown to be a little flawed.Incidentally, I recollect reading that when they were built the local council stated they could not be used as a precedent for any other tall buildings. Guess the current crop of council policy makers have forgotten all about that.

Lorne Gifford ● 3328d

"...local, regional and national planning policy is very much 'anti-car' "And this is a very wrong policy. The earlier policy makers realise this the better.

Alex Shpinkov ● 3328d

Sorry Adam, I'll have to have a lie down. You agreed with me. I'm in shock!Merry Christmas.Ray,

Raymond Havelock ● 3329d

I agree with much of what Raymond says, although I'd go a step further and tackle population growth, which is the biggest threat to the planet.Even as a professional planning consultant I do agree with the comments about infrastructure (after all I get the same public transport as everyone else, I have to wait to see a doctor etc.) although again that has its fundamental basis in uncontrolled population growth.Whilst I can't personally agree with the parking concerns, more importantly people have to realise that whatever their own views the reality is that local, regional and national planning policy is very much 'anti-car' and hence it is extremely rare for planning applications to be refused nowadays on the basis of insufficient car provision.Personally, as I said previously, to me the main issues are design, density, potentially daylight and sunlight, and the fundamental non-compliance with the adopted Local Plan brief for the site.

Adam Beamish ● 3329d

What on earth are LBH thinking of? This is a hideous out of character out of proportion development  with serious light and parking issues. How can you hold people to a pledge not to own a car? It is the sheer greed of LBH that these dense developments are being planned. Brentford is a shambles, the infrastructure cannot take any more of these inappropriate developments.

Elizabeth Price ● 3329d

It's quite simple. The infrastructure that exists cannot cope with the demand as it is.The new South West trains to be introduced in the next few months are Standee Commuter crush trains with far fewer seats than on the three types currently used.Not that that gets mentioned in the blurb.The only solution is to stand for 40 mins as there will be no seats by the time the trains arrive at Syon Brentford, Kew or ChiswickLikewise the reduction of seats into Paddington is to reduce by nearly 50% with Crossrail and gains all the seats will be occupied by Slough heading east.This is what is called an improvement.But if the current populous used public transport to get to work it would collapse.Even what is being talked about would be at capacity within a very short time and building on every square metre will carry on feeding it.We really need new towns, a better spread of the economy across the Country and for opportunity and quality of life and culture to be as good and accessibleto negate the need to live in London or the South East.That has to start with much stricter planning with quality of life for existing inhabitants put above the desires of developers and profit and restricting and penalising residents for their shortcomings and lack of foresight.There are professionals out there but they are not being listened to, suppressed by the likes of...well you know who they are.

Raymond Havelock ● 3329d

People need cars - London is a really big city, and though public transport is good, its expensive.  Also there is very limited shopping facilities in Brentford.  Hence the need of a car to go to a large supermarket, and stuff.  People dont need cars if they live in the centre of London, but most certainly do out here in the outskirts of the city.

Emma Renton ● 3329d

The point here really is - people need cars. And building housing without sufficient provisions for parking is irresponsible and short sighted.

Alex Shpinkov ● 3329d

Possibly so Adam, but the person I was chatting with was very nice and had a family, so obviously needs a car. Anyway since we don't yet live in Soviet controlled East Germany I'd be more inclined to pat him on the back and praise his ability to get one over on the Stasi.

Lorne Gifford ● 3329d

It isn't a foolproof system, I'd agree with that - someone could apply for a permit using a different address etc.At the same time, as with many restrictions imposed upon planning permissions, there's nothing to stop a resident bringing the matter to the Council's enforcement team who I'm sure would enforce such a blatant breach relatively easily.

Adam Beamish ● 3329d

Magistrates house development has no parking. New owner parking his permitted car in a residents bay. What more proof do you need? You could ask the council, but I don't suppose they'd bother replying.  I've asked them several times for their plan to tackle the now illegal level of pollution in Brentford and they steadfastly refuse to reply. One of the problems I guess from having one person in charge of both development and the environment.

Lorne Gifford ● 3330d

'And chatting with a chap parking in a residents zone near me, it appears the council do give parking permits to those buying flats in developments that have no parking.'I think we need a little more 'proof' than that.

Anne England ● 3330d

Of course the Morrisons block is hopelessly over scale. And of course the artists images play down its bulk and ignore blocked sunlight, that’s why they use ‘artists’ in a world where computer modelling can show exactly what it’ll look like and exactly how big a shadow it’ll cast from any angle you fancy. And chatting with a chap parking in a residents zone near me, it appears the council do give parking permits to those buying flats in developments that have no parking.

Lorne Gifford ● 3330d

Sorry Alan but I think that's unfair, just contributing to this forum is part of helping the community and I've already given several pointers on this thread about what an objection should include, and what is going to carry limited weight, all of which I've done in my own free time.Many posters on both this forum and CW4 will tell you how I've exchanged many off-site emails with him providing advice and guidance, all at no charge (even when people offer to pay).If the Morrisons site was directly next door to where I lived I would have a direct personal invblvement, but it isn't it, yes it's in the locality but so are countless other sites where I have acted (as a professional consultant) both on behalf of developers and on behalf of residents and organisations objecting to applications, so  there has to be a line somewhere.

Adam Beamish ● 3332d

The suggestion of getting a professional second opinion is a very sound one. But how can ordinary residents, hacked off by this constant assault on the local envisions ever find the money and resources to take on these developers and advisors that they have resources to fund?  It's far from a level playing field and recent history shows that Local elected councillors and officers cannot be trusted or relied upon to fight the corner or even push hard for a better result.The only places where this has succeeded is where people like yourself and those who are in the legal profession and suitable other professions have put things aside and used their skills for their community. It happens more in small towns and villages because they care more and people will unite and communicate more with each other. I know that this is quoting from the book of policy but the assumption that because we live in a city a car is not necessary is pure folly.If you have a desk bound job and only need to take a packed lunch in a dinky little bag then fine. But there are as many who do not work like that.All my local friends use a car or van. It is essential to their ability to make a living.  Some use cars that double up as offices and vans, lugging stuff about that is impractical to carry or transport any other way. If I was told I could not have a car because of where I live then I could not make a living.That's a form of ethnic cleansing. If you are a craftsman or artisan or anyone who does not stare at a screen or push buttons all day and work in a fixed place, then do not live here.Adam, you know as well as I that our local public transport is not bad, but is creaking at the seams, already at capacity and that now almost complete upgrades and increases in capacity has already been absorbed and still we are creaking at the seams. I use all means to get about. Bike locally, walk, bus tube and train, but last week over 600 miles by car. A car club would be no good for me or my wife. It's also hard to get hold of one when you need it . I now prefer to use the train but the cost in the UK is so high that it cannot be recuperated so dents my income too severely. It's not cheap running a vehicle here, if it were really not of any use then people would already have discarded them.  Instead we have the rather bizarre phenomenon of people buying huge cars which in my view really are unnecessary in most cases in an urban area. Especially when some of these models have such a tiny payload space.The car is for a great many, still a means to a living, and for most the means to living in the 21st century. It is the lack of planning and foresight to accommodate. Which other countries have managed where possible.

Raymond Havelock ● 3332d

Thanks for the reply Adam, I totally understand drawing the line with work/home life. Thank god not everyone thinks like that or we would have no community!I run my own business & have to draw the line at some point for favours etc but when it's helping the community I do what I can with my free time,  enjoyment of others is payment enough. Just because it's my job doesn't mean I'm going to charge a neighbor when they need my professional help.I'm sorry if that sounds harsh but to me thats reasonable.

Alan Branch ● 3332d

"...especially in this age of car clubs etc. "Are you a member of a car club Alan? Have you ever used them?

Alex Shpinkov ● 3332d

Alan, yes I'm a resident, living around 10 minutes walk from the site.I've made it clear that I don't 'like' the scheme, and I've pointed out how it's contrary to the Local Plan designation for the site, although I've also highlighted how that designation isn't in my view particularly realistic to start with.  Nonetheless, I've given readers some expert input there.As a planning consultant I am no more suitably qualified than you or the next person to pass judgement on a technical report prepared by a daylight and sunlight consultant, as I posted earlier if you or another else wanted to really 'beef up' an objection on such grounds I'd advise appointing an independent daylight and sunlight consultant.Whether I choose to object or not as a resident is my call.  Within reason I am happy to provide free guidance, and indeed I already have done on this thread and regular forumites on both this and CW4 will know that I frequently give free advice both on the forum and away from the forum, which is something I'm happy to do.At the same time, there are only so many hours in the day (I work for a major multi-disciplinary consultancy in the City, there is a work/life balance and planning is my source of income, so there comes a point when I have to say "look, I'm happy to help, these are my initial thoughts, but if you want further expertise from me then I will need to be instructed on a formal chargeable basis".And I'm sorry if that sounds harsh when I'm a local resident, but to me it's a reasonable position.

Adam Beamish ● 3332d

Are you a resident Adam? forgive me but you say "if I was suitably concerned" does that mean you're not bothered by this scheme?I think everyone here would appreciate your expert input if the case is you are bothered and prepared to help.

Alan Branch ● 3332d

On the subject of are GVA (authors of the daylight and sunlight report) credible, of course they are, as I often say on these forums no consultant is going to produce a technical report that falsifies data just to satisfy a client given the extremely damaging professional consequences of doing so.I'm not a daylight and sunlight consultant but if I was suitably concerned, I would look to appoint another daylight and sunlight consultant to independently appraise the assessment and its conclusions - it will carry far more weight if a professional consultant submits a technical representation outlining flaws in the application than a representation from Joe Bloggs which just says "the proposal will have a detrimental impact on daylight and sunlight" without any evidence to back it up.An objection on parking grounds is unlikely to get anywhere given it is a town centre site benefiting from medium/high access to public transport - hence parking provision should be low.  And regular forumites will know that I don't share this belief that Londoners should be provided with parking for their own cars, as the majority of people do not need them, especially in this age of car clubs etc.  My parents need a car, living as they do in the sticks with the nearest shop 4 miles away and 1 bus a week serving the village, you or I don't (yes I have a car, I typically use it once a week but could cope without it without any particular difficulty).For me, any objection on this scheme should have a technical edge to it in terms of trying to rebut the conclusion of the daylight and sunlight report etc, and on a planning policy basis in terms of how the scheme is a long way from being compliant with the local plan designation for the site.

Adam Beamish ● 3332d

Some excellent point there Raymond, I hadn't even considered the pollution aspect . The fact it is conservation area also should mean something.I have done a bit of my own research regarding the sunlight and found an helpful sun calculator, this shows a huge area affected behind this building causing a huge loss of direct sunlight and shadow that will last 5 months of the year.You can see a proposed sunlight shadow video and some images in case you have problems with a short video. here - https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0BwzRaparGZsbY0p1NGk4bDRVM1U?usp=sharingPlease encourage people to file their comments on the hounslow website - http://planning.hounslow.gov.uk/Planning_CaseNo.aspx?strCASENO=P/2016/5573

Alan Branch ● 3333d

Also the perspective has been doctored showing the Church in the distance.It won't be it will be almost totally obscured.They also do not show the hideous rear elevation and the effect that will have on the conservation area and the school.Presumably every parent has been notified of both the disruption, pollution hazards and and noise that will be inflicted upon their children but also the long term after effects of light reduction.Interesting article on BBC London over weekend that indicates that the London Basin now has the lowest light levels in the UK, suffering from overcast skies for a longer period of time. The lack of direct sunlight is already having an effect on vegetation but also causes damp, mould and health issues.Most of these are far more serious threats to public health than vehicle pollution which is also revealed as a bit of a con.If ALL vehicles are banned from London, the toxins will reduce by just 2 microns.The biggest polluters are us - Humans and multi storey buildings which are hugely energy inefficient requiring systems for just about everything and expel vast amounts of pollutants. Even Greenpeace, who I have long supported have been telling unsubstantiated porkies.Fact is London is far less polluted than it was. Locally opening up of the river from Wandsworth to Isleworth in the late 50s and the 1960s whilst seriously cleaning the extremely polluted lower thames has made the whole riverside are much cleaner.  It's also why high rise buildings were NOT encouraged as the previous generation of high industrial buildings were found to cause obstruction to air flow.This is now all being undone by the power of developers and big money and no real means to square up to this on level terms.Councils are to blinkered by self interest and political nonsense to really be satisfactory defenders.If only they could tell us the truth rather than turn it all into the cocktail of money, spin and politics.If they are really serious about health and quality of life then schemes like this should never get past the first hurdle.

Raymond Havelock ● 3333d

I notice also that from the photo on the homepage that the other side of the high street is represented by the buildings that are currently in situ. When the Morrison's site is developed the other side of the high street will be or will soon after become very different indeed, with its own high rise eyesores looming over us...so the overall effect could  be pretty oppressive and gloomy.

Keith Iddon ● 3333d

The person I spoke to said that the rest of the area would be getting a 24/7 CPZ from the Butts to Ealing Road to accommodate the needs of residents? It said was as though that would be a gift.In fact it will be hell, just like living in Fulham and of course it will cost all local residents a small fortune per annum.Some solution that is .Our councillors surely cannot sit on the fence over this yet again.Wholly inappropriate in every aspect

Raymond Havelock ● 3333d

Your so right Jo, as for parking according to the advisors I spoke to at the public meeting park of their residents contract is they are not allowed a vehicle. I asked the question "so out of over 500 residents you don't think one of them will have a car and try and park it locally?" he replied "well they are not allowed"  no matter how many times I asked him he still didn't get it..I left him with "if you think for a second that because their contract says they can't have a car not one of them will try your more delusional than I thought". I am hoping the planning officers are not fooled by this companies application. But your right I have very little faith in them being experienced enough.

Alan Branch ● 3333d

It's hideous and yet another completely out of scale, and out of keeping monstrosity. Agree the light blocking issues, and problems with horrible downdrafts etc, will blight the surrounding area.Unfortunately, the councillors and planners who okayed the police station tower years back have a lot to answer for. One of the most depressing things I heard at the council meeting to approve the Ballymore proposals was the planning officer citing that hideous (and utterly out of keeping with its surroundings) tower as a reason why the proposed awful Ballymore tower blocks were an acceptable height. What a joke. Also the lack of parking will involve further parking misery for existing residents, as I don't imagine it will be the case that everyone who lives there will be required to sign some sort of pledge not to have cars or vans.

Jo Francis ● 3333d

Thats an excellent point Martin, I wonder if thats strategic or just chance :)  From the look of the plans they company seems to be doing their utmost to disguise this sun blocking behemoth of a building at the end of the high street. I do hope residents & local councillors act on this quickly, or Brentford will be blighted with this thing. I have serious doubts anyone can stop it.

Alan Branch ● 3333d

I note that notification of the planning application was sent out dated 13/12/16 with comments invited back within 31 days which takes us to Jan 12. Eleven of those days Hounslow offices are closed. More importantly the timing of the notice period over the Christmas break leaves little time for those who wish to consult collectively on issues to get together. Surely with a development which will affect many people should be given an extensive period to consult and raise concerns?

Martin Case ● 3334d

This company was engaged by the Architects earlier this year and did it's survey in the period where the sun is highest May to August.  They were seen locally at the time.

Raymond Havelock ● 3335d

Well I'd appreciate you reading their report Adam, how can they possibly say the impact is negligible? also no mention is made of the overshadow of the residents of Lateward Road or the park, it's actually quite bizarre. The winter sun would be blocked for the majority of the day by such a massive building. Is this company reputable? it certainly doesn't' look like it.

Alan Branch ● 3335d

Certainly not a scheme I like from a subjective design and scale perspective.The adopted Local Plan brief for the site supports a mixed use scheme on the basis of a 75/25 retail and residential split, which needless to say isn't achieved and the applicants do acknowledge that within the planning statement that accompanies the application.At the same time, I've always said the Local Plan brief is rather stupid for this site as if such a ratio was strictly applied you'd get only a handful of residential units on this site, which is something of a nonsense because it's a town centre site which benefits from medium/high access to public transport and therefore its development potential should (within reason, I do think this is too much for the site) be maximised.  Note that there is a daylight and sunlight report which accompanies the application, so if anyone was going to serious pursue an objection on such grounds for it to carry  significant weight it would be wise to get another specialist consultancy to carry out their own appraisal (I should declare that I do often work with the company that have produced this appraisal).Hope these initial thoughts help.

Adam Beamish ● 3335d

It's beyond my comprehension, a massive monolith at the end of the high street! I looked through the plans and you can clearly see how they have gone out their way to disguise the height of the thing! During the winter one St Pauls classroom loses 85% of sunlight while the other class average 45% loss & St Pauls Church may never see daylight again! They say the impact on the park is negligible, but it's clear the sunlight would be completely block for the majority of the day to the west end of the park, they also make no mention of the daylight loss to the houses in Lateward Road.I've made a few notes from their plans, it might save you going through the 5 pages of plans & reports on the Hounslow Council website!  but be great to get some expert help on this, please someone tell me this can't be allowed to go ahead.https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwzRaparGZsbUTY1WUlBalN0WGM/view?usp=sharingPlease tell as many as possible to complain..

Alan Branch ● 3335d

Interesting to see which one between Ballymore and Essential Living will be completed first....... :-D

Domenico Urzi ● 3335d

and there is this as well:https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/alsop-submits-plans-for-largest-uk-scheme-to-date/10015769.article

Philippa Bond ● 3335d

The restriction of natural light to both the School and nearby park will be very apparent as most of the day during the academic year will be completely denied to the school. Very bad for Childrens well being and eyesight development.I do hope the school are not prevented from raining concerns over their charges well being.  Not to mention the dust and pollution trap that taller buildings foist upon their surroundings. Not enough is done on this as it's not generally a consideration in planning, but people get blighted by it afterwards.

Raymond Havelock ● 3335d