Forum Topic

Message to Guy Lambert

Guy - I was at the meeting on Friday to object to the concrete high rise jungle that is masquerading as a regeneration plan for Brentford and as you said in your post to Ray Havelock on 28/1/17 you are right, there are a lot of concerns and objections about these plans. Hounslow council have sold our land off to the highest bidder and don't care how its used and what the impact is on our community and our lives in Brentford. As our councillor could you please explain to me what your job description is and why we heard nothing from you in support of the community before during or after that meeting. Could you also outline what you have done to challenge these plans?Many thanks

Lisa Deegan ● 3117d48 Comments

VanessaI like you, would like to know what is an affordable property. Member of my family who is single and trying to buy a studio flat. Even on the shared ownership scheme they cannot afford it. There are different percentages as to what you buy and rent but basically on a 30%, 40% or 50% share you have to be earning 42k to 47k a year to afford the mortgage repayments and the rent.Most of the young people in my family only earn 19k to 22k a year so dont stand a chance

Bernard Allen ● 3111d

All very well Vanessa, But with secrecy and deals occurring in places like Cannes - which are closed to all but vetted PR media and these being attended by this and Ealing Councils how are we supposed to know what is going on.I accept even most Councillors don't either.And yes it is a moan, Simply because I like anyone else are now at a complete loss as what one or a collective can actually do other than band words about.

Raymond Havelock ● 3113d

I think this thread is now reaching the point of having a moan for the sake of it. You ask what can be done and how - well there have been several suggestions. With land being at a premium in and around London you are bound to get overly dense developments unfortunately. Now sure what you mean by:"Why are the authorities not being more communicative about the roots of all this?"The landowners are the people 'at the root' as far as I can understand, they want more bucks for their land, as I have already said work WITH your councillors and local groups who have experience of these matters, that's the way forward.

Vanessa Smith ● 3113d

Are you not the same Iain Muir who purports to reside in Acton? Or in Chiswick?As many of your entries appear there and of similar viewpoint , much of which I agree with. but you don't indicate where you live.In anycase I have already pointed out that losing the supermarket affects as many in Northfields and South Ealing as it does here.As for waffling on, maybe so but that's the whole point what can be done and how?My point is I don't know either, but I do know there are ways, and all more that councils as a whole can do. And those ways need help from experts.But do you seriously think imposing an overdensification an already dense populus is a good thing and simply to be accepted ?Why are the authorities not being more communicative about the roots of all this?At least locals can then have some sort of direction to object effectively.

Raymond Havelock ● 3113d

"I think reading back through all these, that people do accept that we cannot rely on councillors."Far be it from me to make excuses for present councillors, but saying that people accept they can't be relied on is a bit rich, councillors have to act within the law, you can't make it up as you go along. There are many things the community can do WITH their councillors to try and amend/ameliorate the effects of proposed developments on the local area. Brentford Community Council has been mentioned - they have expertise and a good track record, Planning Aid for London are another source of help, trawl through the local plan and look at what the council have said in their view of what the local area should try and achieve. It's daunting and frustrating but it is possible, pick your fight and accept you won't get everything you want but even little things can make a difference. You know the old saying - The devil is always in the detail. At least it's worth giving it a go.

Vanessa Smith ● 3113d

This is worth looking at regards planning laws etc and objections. http://www.mcspotlight.org/campaigns/current/residents/planning.html

Neil Chippendale ● 3113d

Sorry, I forgot to say, I had at least 2? flyers through the door about the developments from the developers PR companies. This would have been last autumn. There were exhibitions in Watermans from memory. Unfortunately I have binned them so do not have dates and did not attend. The consultations would also have been listed on this site. Perhaps the Editor can remind us of dates and content. NNets search facility is notorious for its failings....... The flyers were not from LBH, but the consultation company, they were full of the usual crap greenwash......Developers of this size of development are required to consult and hold exhibitions to pass the first stage of the planning process....

Iain Muir ● 3113d

It is amusing how Adam and myself are accused of not living in Brentford by those who do not like our advice. All a bit 'Royston Vasey' I wonder if Morrisons is a 'local shop for local people' Lisa misreads my sole post to wonder if 'my head is in Hong Kong, err no, that's my son's view of planning law, not mine. Then Raymond waffles on at length without actually saying anything constructive, also presuming I am one of those 'outsiders' probably a plant from a developer..... Is it only local residents who may have a view? What about Neil, former resident of this Parish, much respected local historian but now resident in Australia?. Change is always difficult so I understand the angst developments like Morrisons and Watermans create, less so the police station site with the ugly tower block. But London desperately needs a lot more housing to meet demand and the only solution is to densify and to build higher. It is not just Hounslow under pressure, such developments are happening all over London. Have you looked at central Ealing and the Uxbridge Rd recently? Yes the Hounslow Plan has nice ideas about height etc, but they were trumped by Boris's London wide planning guidance which of course provided developers ample scope to overrule borough plans. If you want to see quasi Hong Kong take a look at the plans for the massive Earls Court/West Kensington site, promoted by the hard line Tories then in control of LBHF together with their mates in RBKC, given approval by Boris. Sorry folks but as I stated in my sole previous post, the developments are inevitable, I trust LBH will be able to enforce an acceptable design/bulk/massing, a decent percentage of affordable housing, and a suitably sized temporary site for a supermarket. Excuse me now but I need to walk the 80 yards or so to my famous local Brentford pub for a pint of Pride, I will keep a close watch out for pitchforks and burning torches on my way......

Iain Muir ● 3113d

I think reading back through all these, that people do accept that we cannot rely on councillors.The drift and subsequent entries are simply what can we do as a community?Who and whose can do what and how and what's the best way?Of course there are questions and things a council can do.  Designation of sites for one. The officers are public servants and policy can be directed by council.But it has to be accepted that the ordinary person in the street will perceive this in one way and as I said before, communication is failing.

Raymond Havelock ● 3113d

I am indebted to John for his concise take on planning matters and some relevant history, all true. Councillors can be on a hiding to nothing where planning is concerned. I remember the Tesco saga very well, I got it in the neck from all sides as I recall, one of our colleagues calling me a 'an f**king prima donna' for standing out against the Mogden Tesco application. However, Tesco wanted 24 hour operation right slap next door to a new housing estate and that meant delivery lorries at all hours too. They came back several times for that and to this day have never got it. Yes, we lost out on planning gain, some might say a small price to pay. These days it is even harder because of the ever changing planning legislation and this government's favouring of developers. Always these arguments come down to planning reasons and that is what people really have to take on board.

Vanessa Smith ● 3114d

I am disappointed but not surprised to see a thread on planning issues in Brentford descend into a dialogue of the deaf.The first point I would emphasise is that councillors, like the people they represent, are usually unqualified in issues surrounding planning and development. When they sit on a planning committee their role is quasi-judicial and THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED (my emphasis) to take into account the views of their electors when considering planning matters UNLESS these views are based upon sound planning arguments which provide reasons for rejecting an application. Councillors are expected to be guided by the professional advice of planning officers in the same way that lay magistrates are advised by the legally qualified clerk of the court.When I was a Hounslow councillor living in Heston my neighbours were extremely hostile towards me because of my absence at a planning meeting that approved a high density housing development directly across the road from where I lived. It was only when I showed them the letter from the Borough Solicitor threatening me with legal action by the council if I took any part (I was said to have a conflict of interest) in the decision-making process that they accepted why I was absent.Around 25 years ago a series of planning applications from Tesco generated 5 Tesco superstores in Hounslow borough. Officers advised members that every one of these should be approved. Tesco offered "planning gain" money for each application - up to £5 million for each site. Members approved the applications at Hayes, Osterley and Faggs Road and Tesco paid the "planning gain" money. Members rejected the applications at Mogden and Lower Feltham, reacting to strong lobbying from local residents. These applications were approved by planning inspectors on appeal and were built as planned. The residents affected did not receive any "planning gain" money, as this was no longer on offer.Vanessa Smith, who coined the phrase "London Borough of Tesco" at the time will confirm that her constituents were one of the groups that lost out.The last time I travelled from London City Airport to Brentford I looked at the high rise mess that London has become and pondered about what residents might do to hold back the tide. I have no easy answers. However, tearing into one another on threads like this will only add to the impotence of opponents of these trends.SubmitForum Home

John Connelly ● 3114d

Pontificate is not dictate.Nor did I say I was shooting the messenger because I did not like what was said.But I did criticise the negativity of it all.There is no doubt that the system is wrong from top to bottom, but there is always a way and it is often found, usually with the the help or input of those in the know.But despite the range of technology, communication is worse than ever. People simply do not know what is going on around them until it is is too late and do not have a clue what they can do about it.Council websites are not very user friendly and a great many, nearly half the adult population still have no computer skills or safe internet access.Just look at how few contribute on this website.  In my opinion far too few. But those who do certainly have a wide range of opinions.And yes, I do value Adams regular inputs but level and technical they maybe, I don't thing I am wrong in the fact that they are almost always negative and don't offer ways or solutions that us 'Residents' may be able to manage. That does not mean they are stupid,or any less a citizen.  But they are certainly not being heard. Until they turn up at a short notice public meeting. Over 200 residents, on a friday night.  But whilst every hand raised in objection, very few had actually done so personally. Most had no idea how and to whom.Councillors can keep people posted and alert people on issues below the radar.They can post it here and really it should be reported in a local paper but that is sadly missing.Your last paragraph is exactly what I have said. But it's very clear communications are far too lacking. But when residents do react and interact and turn out to meetings. What happens? They are ignored.  Just look at the Bin fiasco. Genuine concerns raised, ignored and now borne out to be true.  All ignored and dismissed.So little wonder people get angry and find the protocols more a way of appeasement than effective.Take a look at the Planning notices Kensington and Chelsea Post. They are easy to read and comprehend and clearly inform what you can do as an individual.They are also well positioned to maximise the footfall. Simple stuff.

Raymond Havelock ● 3114d

I wasn't intending to be 'condescending' at all, merely talking practicalities. It's what we all have to do, and it is a reality that many people don't understand how the system we live with affects us. I have spent more years than I care to remember getting involved with various local issues, some you win some you lose, that's life, but you have to try. But for every person that gets off their rear there are twenty who sit on the sidelines and criticise but do nothing.

Vanessa Smith ● 3114d

Raymond, I wrote the below in an earlier post :"For example, it isn't a particularly compelling argument to say "a development will completely obliterate all the light" if the developer has got a daylight and sunlight report which suggests otherwise.  As a resident, you don't want to allow the developer to simply dismiss your argument in one sentence by saying "well, we've commissioned a daylight and sunlight report", so it stands to reason that you have to dig a little deeper into the depths of that report and use personal knowledge etc. to cast doubt upon the validity of that report."I regard that as helpful advice, whereas you wrote :"And whilst you are more than able to put the process from a professional angle, I'm afraid you are always negative and rarely suggest the ways round this and the possible positive moves "the residents" can make within their abilities."And don't give me that about criticism, I had the dubious pleasure of working in planning enforcement for many years which is a thankless task and on almost every occasion involves making someone unhappy, taking all kinds of verbal and physical abuse and such like from many 'delightful' residents.So criticism is water off a ducks back, but ironically I think the only ones pontificating on these thread are some of the residents, as though because they are residents that gives them some kind of superiority/priority, which is an entirely flawed approach when it comes to planning matters), and, as for criticism being destructive, the same residents are the ones who are being destructive in this regard by slagging off anyone who is more cautious in their advice/approach, and resorting to the response of "oh you're obviously not a resident".

Adam Beamish ● 3114d

"Adam and others love to pontificate due procedure and remind us all of their superiority of knowledge and procedure"Hold on - no-one is 'pontificating' as you put it, you are shooting the messenger because you don't like the message, what has been said is what the facts are. This is all governed by law, there are as you know a lot of people who can and will try their best to ameliorate the effects of this proposed development if it is approved. Councillors are constrained by the legislation, they can't just throw a hissy fit and reject applications because they are under pressure from local residents. Most developers will do the minimum consultation they are required to do, sorry to say local people have to be alert and keep a watching brief on what goes on, and turn up to any meetings/exhibitions that there are.Everything these days is on the council's website for all to see, why not use it?Sorry but it is up to every one of us as individuals to get off our rears, join local groups and make ourselves aware of how the system works, no-one is going to do it for us. None of us can afford to be unaware - and your neighbour is a wonderful example of the general ignorance of local government - if he seriously thinks he's going to get an individual notice he will be in for very long wait.

Vanessa Smith ● 3114d

Personally I find Guy and Adam’s comments very useful as they remove a lot of the fog around how these things get encouraged, proposed and then approved.  It’s also very courageous of them to engage as far too often people will keep their heads down.When it comes to Brentford then clearly LBH is doing the encouraging, for reasons we can speculate on but will never be admitted.  Developers are doing the proposing, obviously because they see a compliant council and the opportunity for big profit margins.  And then planning officers or the committee do the approval, or occasionally rejection.Knowing why things get rejected is very important as the same reasons just need to be recycled for every similar proposal.  Chiswick Curve was rejected because the building would be "at odds with the wider urban and historic character of the area." and "The standard of design proposed would not be outstanding or of the highest quality and the proposed provision of affordable housing at the site would not maximize affordable housing delivery or promote mixed and balanced communities." When I first saw that particular 32 story proposal I didn’t think, gosh that’s a little at odds with the urban and historic character of the M4 flyover.  I simply saw something so grossly stupid and inappropriate that I nearly choked on my coffee.  From a logical point of view why on earth would anyone think it appropriate to squeeze the biggest possible block of flats onto the single most polluted point in the whole of London, plaster it with neon advertising and then claim it’s green because it has enough solar panels to run a kettle and the artists image shows a tree.  I wouldn’t have thought there’s much in the way of “historical character” about a 1960’s roundabout and the meeting point of 18 lanes of solid traffic, but there you go, the proposal was rejected.Changing the playing field the Hounslow development game competes on is an option that would take far too long to affect how Brentford is going to turn out, so all we can do is play on their turf and to their rules.  And if we assess Essential Livings proposal to LBH’s planning criteria:“At odds with the wider urban and historic character of the area”.  I think that’s a yes."The standard of design proposed would not be outstanding or of the highest quality”.  Most certainly.“the proposed provision of affordable housing at the site would not maximize affordable housing delivery”.  Not LBH’s required 40% affordable housing is it. “promote mixed and balanced communities." Studio and 1 bed rental apartments aimed at transient young professional couples.  I think a no.So it fails, and I trust planning officers and planning committee take note of that and don’t come up with some excuse as to why it gets the go ahead anyway.It is fun, mind you, to occasionally speculate on why LBH appear so keen on turning Brentford into downtown Hong Kong, why they’re the only local council for miles around that actively supports a third heathrow runway, or even to take a dig at them for cycling down to Cannes, dressing up as pilots at a property developers show, and then ditching the bikes and flying back home.  My little dig at the last of these even prompted the LBH Director of Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment to email me personally, which shows they all read this forum.So, Adam and Guy, it's appreciated and please don't stop.

Lorne Gifford ● 3114d

Sorry Adam if you don't like what I said but don't you think your reasons are any different from the rest of us residents ?I love the community I grew up in and live, it's different from most bits of London we've lived in over the last 30 years. Coming back here and finding it almost unchanged, was lovely.It's far from dead as these rafts of developers, planning consultants and council officers make out. Industrially it is, but socially is not.It's being threatened and it's something worth defending. Like you, I would rather not have to write this, plough through documents or research facts or anything else, but simply get on with other things.But things are not right and one cannot just sit on the fence and watch it all happen and then cry after the milk is spilt.I work away from home a lot, I work 70 hour weeks as a norm and am away from friends and family for weeks on end. I hate it now but that's the way it is. But I still try do what I can even if it's just letters and lending support or advice.But there are many locally who do an awful lot more. But like me, have limitations of skill and knowledge on such matters. Whilst being retired and able to bring a full gamut of knowledge and a ability to the community, is a godsend,  it's not fair to expect them to do everything.Every little bit helps. Even if in anonymity.A QC I know often offers her advice this way voluntarily. Sadly not in this field.And whilst you are more than able to put the process from a professional angle, I'm afraid you are always negative and rarely suggest the ways round this and the possible positive moves "the residents" can make within their abilities.One of my mentors often went on about criticism. " If you can'y take it, don't give it. But above all, always make sure your criticism is constructive not destructive."I try to stick to that.

Raymond Havelock ● 3114d

Raymond,I'm sorry but did you actually read and digest my previous post ?.Quite frankly I'm sick and tired of residents, simply because they don't like the hard nose reality I bring to the discussion, accusing me of pontificating, being 'superior' and conveying excuses and negativity.  I'm irritated by the little digs about my lack of contribution, my failure to put community before my pocket etc.  Quite frankly it's rather offensive, utter nonsense and I don't need to justify myself to you, residents or anyone else.There's numerous reasons I retain a degree of distance, including - (a) unlike many members of community groups etc. I'm not retired, I'm a practising professional who has to abide by a code of conduct (which means having to bring a hard nosed reality to proceedings which residents often don't like to hear and make me unpopular, (b) sometimes I can be professionally conflicted or the perception might be that I am professionally conflicted, e.g. the fact that I have previously worked in projects with the daylight and sunlight consultants for the Morrisons application), and (c) I'm away from home 12 hours a day working in planning, as I have done for almost 20 years, and I have a right to a life outside that.If that's being selfish then so be it, but if I didn't give a damn or didn't want to assist then I wouldn't bother to post on these forums at all.  Like many residents, and many of your beloved 'community leaders', don't, but that is always conveniently forgotten. Anyway, there comes a point when it's time to let you all get on with it, so good luck. 

Adam Beamish ● 3114d

hmmm... really "sad" that you had to mar your response with a condescending comment like that... I utterly support Alan's response to you and Iain (although I am not quite sure where Iain's head is, clearly in HK) ... I see you get quite passionate about wheelie bins so I guess you pick your fights...

Lisa Deegan ● 3114d

Very well put Raymond.

Keith Iddon ● 3114d

This is the big problem and also how organisations and establishments manage to get away and push through such things.Adam and others love to pontificate due procedure and remind us all of their superiority of knowledge and procedure.But so far both Adam and Cllr. Dennison at the meeting last week only managed to convey excuses and negativity.In other words it is pointless and futile to object.Then the whole thing is foisted on to the public, in this case the existing residents.The onus is on them, or rather - us ,to be proficient in procedure, planning gobbledegook, architecture and social engineering. And to know how to make an objection that meets the councils requirements.Who the heck has time to do all that?This is why we have elected representatives. They are supposed to be looking after and conveying matters on our behalf for the good of the inhabitants they represent.It seems that's a mere sideshow and clearly to some, an irritation.The only way ordinary people can be effective is to rely on those who tirelessly do something to counter this onslaught.This is why we have Greenpeace or the Victorian Society. Because we cannot rely solely on councillors or officers to accept when things are unacceptable.Brentford people are not stupid and know when enough is enough and when things are going wrong.  And that point has been reached.People are giving up their time and incomes to do something. Others put in a huge amount of unpaid and probably unthanked time. Like the chap from the BCC.But Adam, where is your contribution?  Where is the considerable expertise you could no doubt offer in combating this onslaught.Up and down the country, many of the successful oppositions have come about because those with expertise in the planning domain have volunteered their abilities for their community.They have put their community before their pocket and yes it is probably a bit uncomfortable. There are those who wish to help but don't have the skills and those who expect someone else to deal with it all.And unfortunately we have apathy, which is why we have rulers with mandates with tiny proportions of the electorate.As for Iain's observation, well I can only assume he does not live in Brentford.At the Morrisons site there is just one badly located notice on a Lamp Post by a bus stand on Back Lane. Not even by a bus stop but the bus stand where no-one congregates.There is no longer an effective or informative local press and very few even use these online sites.No one in the vicinity has had any sort of notice from LBH but we do get planning notices in the post for developments in areas over a mile away.The plain fact is the exhibitions were not publicised and were targeted only at those who might have a passing interest. That's generally not the local populous.So outrageous are these proposals that there are still many - even my neighbour who think it is still a wild rumour and are in complete denial about it's reality. " I'll believe it when the council send a notice out like they did with those bins and the parking"

Raymond Havelock ● 3114d

You're clearly reading a very different thread to me Alan.The fundamental point I'm making is that objectors don't do themselves any favours by becoming overly emotive or sensationalist, indeed it is the worst thing they can do and I often come across situations where residents with perfectly credible and justified concerns get 'carried away' and effectively destroy their credibility by making absurd allegations or sweeping statements that have no evidential or factual basis.  For example, it isn't a particularly compelling argument to say "a development will completely obliterate all the light" if the developer has got a daylight and sunlight report which suggests otherwise.  As a resident, you don't want to allow the developer to simply dismiss your argument in one sentence by saying "well, we've commissioned a daylight and sunlight report", so it stands to reason that you have to dig a little deeper into the depths of that report and use personal knowledge etc. to cast doubt upon the validity of that report.I'm not for a minute saying appoint a professional, indeed as posters will testify I often deter residents from appointing professionals when preparing an objection, depending upon the particulars of the scheme and the specific issues it raises.  Sometimes it is appropriate, there's times I have successfully acted for objectors (and unsuccessfully too), and equally there's times objectors have wanted to appoint me professionally and I've declined on the basis that there's very little weight my involvement would add to their objection, but as many residents will tell you I'm always happy to review things and make suggestions/comments etc. without charge - I'm not on here to make money.Lorne has made some valid points on this thread about how the proposals are in conflict with the Local Plan, and it's those kind of common sense points which are the basis for any valid objection.And don't forget this whole thread rather started out by calling out a local Councillor for allegedly not siding with local residents, which demonstrated a lack of understanding of the whole planning process, which myself and others tried to clarify.I believe, whether you do or not, that I'm only trying to help, even if it is only by posting on these threads, and in my view what I post is practical advice.

Adam Beamish ● 3114d

What a bizarre thread, people being accused of being ignorant of planning news because they don't visit this site every day or understand planning procedure or posting that to be really effective it's best if you employ a professional sunlight assor.  I don't think anyone has said they don't know how to post their objection to the council, just a simple expression of  horror and disgust in what looks to be one of the worst developments in Brentford and to spread the word for others to help as much as they can. Not everyone can see every planning notice that is happening in Brentford via this site Iain, some people like myself travel an awful lot for work and  out of the country, to say your surprised people are ignorant of this is beyond understanding, and very rude!As for Adam, it's obvious he has experience in this matter but to post on a thread a message that more or less says - what you need is professional help - is not helpful in the slightest, besides stating the obvious. I'm not being rude Adam but you post statements like this then wonder why people find it annoying, people want practical expert advice, I'm sure you have helped many before but in this case all I hear is your an expert but haven't the time to help. There are people of Brentford that are using their skills and their own time to try and raise public awareness and give resources for people to register a properly composed objection to the council, why not join in rather than post on a forum to engage in bickering! End of thread for me..

Alan Branch ● 3115d

The local plan is a credible document that is worth quoting if you wish to send in objections before the planning application is decided. It is one of the documents that the planning officers and committee members should have regard to when coming to a decision.Still to bang on about one of my hobby horses I just wish someone would define 'affordable housing', absolutely drives me to distraction - it's one of those glib phrases that means sod-all, and it should be stopped.

Vanessa Smith ● 3115d

This thread highlights the increasingly vehement objection to the continued onslaught of inappropriate developments in Brentford.  I assume I’m allowed to call Brentford by it’s traditional name now that LBH’s property developer marketing has stopped referring to us as Kew Gateway.Adam comment that, ‘Applications have to be determined on the basis of their compliance with relevant development plan policies and all other material planning considerations’, and not necessarily with any regard to the wishes of the local population. In this respect I’d like to refer to what I understand to be the key relevant development plan, namely The Hounslow Local Plan and in particular the bits that say…., development proposals will be expected to respect and enhance the established character, be of an appropriate scale and type, work with and respect the wishes of local residents, contribute to the townscape character, have high quality design and appearance, contain 40% affordable housing…., and so on. There must be a million such phrases in the 250 page document and anyone of them is perfect for an official, ‘completely contradicts the compliance requirements’ refusal.  On the subject of tall buildings the Local Plan is very specific in saying…., there is some limited scope for 4 to 6 storey (up to 20m) buildings along main streets such as London Road (Brentford High Street).  No where at all can I see a statement saying or even hinting that an impressively ugly, massively oversized and overheight block of studio and 1 bed rental flats would be just perfect to mark the entrance to Brentford town centre.

Lorne Gifford ● 3115d

No problem Lisa.I don't disagree with many of the points you've raised, and I'm certainly not going to try to defend the planning system as it stands - but nonetheless the system is what it is and I don't point the finger of blame for that at either developers or local planning authorities, but at governments.Speaking with my "personal opinion" hat on, I'm no fan of the unsustainable growth of the capital, and I'm strongly opposed to unchecked population growth full stop, which is the biggest problem the world faces (and which is why there is such a push towards more and more housing), but  sadly no government will ever have the balls to tackle that.Probably the only bit of your post I disagree on is traffic - the last thing I want is more parking provision, personally I want to see less parking provision and stiffer regulation to try and force more people away from what is often (not always) an unnecessary reliance on the private car, which is why traffic is so bad in the first place.

Adam Beamish ● 3115d

What you do is get together, contact Brentford Community council who are pretty expert at this sort of thing and try Planning Aid for London who do give advice on these matters.http://www.brentfordcc.org.uk/index.php/about-ushttp://planningaidforlondon.org.uk/?idno=685It is quite sad that people don't understand the way that local government works - even though local councils have been around since the year dot, and affect many areas of our daily lives. Sometimes it isn't enough to get involved only when something directly affects you, the answer is find out what is going on, and do something practical.

Vanessa Smith ● 3115d

Adam - sincere apologies, I did not mean to come across as hard as I did. I am frustrated, as are lot of people, about the ambivalence of Hounslow Council and the stronghold these developers have on our area. Yes I am a new comer to this forum and indeed the these conversations. That however does not make my opinion or my desire for action any less important. Conversations have obviously been had on this forum/website for some time but the actual detail around what is being proposed and what impact it would have has clearly not been fully revealed. If the plans and impact was appropriately highlighted to the local residents, we wouldn't have had such a heated meeting on Friday and disgruntled community. There might be a percentage of people who want these developments as they are proposed today but it is a very small percentage. I am sure if given the opportunity, the local people would agree that development needs to be done with careful consideration to what is actually needed in Brentford. What we don’t need are more people, tens storey tower blocks and no supermarket for two years. The reality as it appears is... the various parts of land has been sold off to a variety of residential developers whose only design inspiration is high rise residential unaffordable flats and we already have them in abundance. There has been no provision for any local amenities to support more people. There's no town planner to try and knit this "regeneration" together. The current traffic is unbelievable during most of day. There isn't enough parking. We will lose the Waterman Arts centre to another ugly block of flats and may not get it back unless the council make some social housing deal with London Green. Meanwhile we collectively have to carefully craft letters to the planning people who have the authority to approve these plans individually, depending on the plans and where they are. They may listen, they may not... a proper totalitarianism regime. I have lived in Brentford for 16 years and was told when we moved here that the area was being developed. We have friends who grew up in the area and in their 70's and even they say when they were young there was plans to regenerate this area... these plans have been on the table for the last 50 years I suspect and now that things are happening, no thought for the area, its residents, the history it embodies or the its future have been taken into consideration. Brentford as a town on the banks of the Thames is being sold off due to poorly written planning laws and greedy developers... and the locals... the actual people who are invested in this community are an afterthought with no power or governmental bodies to support them.What are we supposed to do?

Lisa Deegan ● 3115d

Lisa, not meaning to be rude, but if you were a regular contributor to this forum you'd know who I am.To clarify, I've lived in Brentford for over 15 years.  I'm also a chartered town planner with 19 years experience split evenly between the public sector (including 5 years working for LBH from 2001 to 2006) and the public sector (working for both housebuilders, developers and, on plenty of occasions, both individuals and groups objecting to major planning applications).So, without wishing to sound arrogant, I know what I'm talking about.  And in posting as I frequently do about planning matters, I've actually only trying to help, by ensuring that people's efforts in putting together representations etc. focus on genuine planning matters.I appreciate what I say isn't usually what people want to hear, but I'm bringing some hard nosed reality to the thread - if you want to ignore what I see then so be it, but you would be daft to do so.Let's just go back on your last post.  I'm not suggesting you or anyone else sit back and just let it all happen, I'm suggesting you make sure any representation is based on genuine planning matters, and pointing out that it's not good for residents to make sweeping assumptions like "the development will block out all the light" if the applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight report produced by a qualified consultant which suggests otherwise.  For an objection to stand up and carry weight, it needs to properly review the consultant's report and identify any flaws within it etc.As for your last sentence, which Planning Officer is 'defending' whether a Councillor should support the people in their area ? - as far as I'm aware no Officers were present on Friday, and as I and others have explained when it comes to planning matters a Councillor simply cannot support the people within their constituency.And please don't forget, as Vanessa has said, if an application is refused and the applicant appeals, the ultimate decision on that appeal comes down to an individual Inspector, who will have no local interest or knowledge, and will determine the appeal in the same "hard nose reality" manner I've just posted.Sorry if this comes across hostile, but it does get rather tedious when people who who only recently started posting on here get "upset" just because a longstanding local residents happens to share her expertise, and it isn't what you want to hear.

Adam Beamish ● 3115d

I can understand your son even if I don't completely agree with him, I still have two at home who haven't got a hope in hell of renting privately let alone buying, and that isn't right for them or us.Utilising empty properties of which there are a considerable number, using cheap, modern prefabricated building methods on derelict sites and councils undertaking massive building programmes countrywide are the only hope, that way we might just be able to preserve our open green spaces.

Vanessa Smith ● 3115d

Well said Vanessa, I am surprised that people were ignorant of what was planned for Morrisons, it has been on the front page here before when previous consultations were undertaken, same for Watermans/Police Station. Lisa, why attack Adam, he is only trying to be helpful advising from his prof. experience. As said councils and councillors have limited scope when a developer submits for planning. They have to work within planning law. It is very simplistic to think us locals don't like it so the council can reject it. My view on both developments are that they are inevitable. I trust that the council will do all they can to minimise the size/impact, maximise whatever the government now (laughably) consider affordable housing and maintain a decent size supermarket during and after development. My 29 yr old son who lives in private rental would prefer to see Hong Kong style high rises everywhere, including the green belt as he believes only by massively increasing supply will people like him be able to afford a decent home. You might guess that he is an economist, and not a nimby......

Iain Muir ● 3115d

Planning decisions can only be made with regard to planning legislation, what councillors or residents for that matter, do or do not like is neither here nor there, all this is - as Adam has said - a matter of legalities, that's the reality. Of course councillors listen to local opinion based on the correct planning grounds. The system is pre disposed towards the developer - who also has the right of appeal should the application be refused, that is why it is vital the grounds for refusal are as cast iron as possible. Councillors must also have regard to their fiduciary duty and the costs of fighting appeals, after all it's our money. Throwing it away on a case bound to be lost on appeal really is irresponsible. There is NO party line or 'whip' where planning is concerned.

Vanessa Smith ● 3116d

Well said Lisa, Adam I'm sure if you were at the meeting you'd at least agree it was clear to see all of the people attending there are not happy with the planned Morrisons project.  I like many other am sure did not know Guy was restrained from saying whether he is for or against the scheme until after the vote, and thats a perfectly reasonable explanation, which I respect but  people are simply asking that councillors listen to the majority! The headmaster I think put it very well when he explained the huge impact it will have on the school. If a councillor votes against the schools best interests just to keep their job or the party line I would be very shocked. The massive building scheme is so outrageous it begs belief. Also people were unaware the site usage had been changed I certainly cannot remember any consultation about the Morrison's site being changed. There is some new posts about the Morrison's site,  please see the St Pauls park Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/FriendsofStPaulsRec/?ref=bookmarksAndy Ward has recently done some amazing 3d drawing showing the massive impact this monstrosity of a building will have. Wonderful when the community comes together to help each other!

Alan Branch ● 3116d

Adam - do you live in Brentford and are you directly affected by these plans? I am guessing no. If the impact of said plans are such a low priority for the council and/or the planning committee and our collective voices are not being heard then the minimum we expect and need is support from the people who are elected and in a position to provide that support. what do you suggest we do, sit back and just let it all happen...??? that might be your attitude to life but clearly not to ours. We have a right to fight these changes and the planning ombudsman also agrees with this. There is an undercurrent here of something not right if we have a planning officer defending whether a councillor should support the people in their area...

Lisa Deegan ● 3116d

Quite possibly, yes, but as I pointed out to another poster some time ago, the application incorporates a daylight and sunlight assessment, so it couldn't be refused on this basis unless the Council was confident that the conclusions of that report were in some way incorrect or flawed.

Adam Beamish ● 3116d

As far as I am aware, residential planning applications can be refused for a variery of reasons, such as overlooking (loss of privacy), overshadowing / loss of light to neighbouring properties, lack of parking etc etc. Even "harm to street scene" is sufficient to have planning application rejected. Surely, this monstrous proposal ticks all the above boxes?Overshadowing to the primary school is enough for the planning committee to reject it.From Hounslow planning guidelines 2003 http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/residential_extension_guidelines2003.pdf"When the Council has to assess a planning application for a domestic extension, there are several issues that needto be considered. Any proposal will have an impact on both the house and its surroundings - remember that thesecan be both positive and negative impacts. In a typical application the Council will have to consider the impact on:The property itself;• Neighbouring and attached houses or flats;• The local street scene;• The amount of off-street parking provision; and• The amount of private garden area remaining.When we assess your application we will look at whether your proposal has a negative impact on any of theabove. The amount of over-shadowing and loss of light or privacy to neighbour’s gardens and living rooms thatyour extension will cause must be considered."

Marina Thomas ● 3116d

It's no good people saying "we're your constituents, because we elected you as a Councillor and because we don't like this scheme you must stand with us and vote to refuse it".Rightly or wrongly, planning doesn't work like that.  Applications have to be determined on the basis of their compliance with relevant development plan policies and all other material planning considerations.The opinions of residents are a material planning consideration, nothing more, nothing less.  If Guy or any other Council decided to "play to the public gallery" and say "my constituents don't like it so I want it refused" then (a) the Borough Solicitor should remind him that such a motion would be improper and (b) he'd be reported to the Standards Board and almost certainly removed from the Planning Committee.Going back to the Site Allocation for the site, as I posted some time ago that dates back to the days of the 2008 Brentford Area Action Plan and remains part of the current Local Plan, all of which have been the subject of both public consultation exercises and independent examination by the Secretary of State.

Adam Beamish ● 3116d

Reading these post it looks like the decision has already been made. The flats on the watermann site are poor and quite high. We have no school provisions, no parking, no clean up plan, just people paying a load more countil tax. In the end there will be no community, just people in spaces. Its a shame as Brendford is a great little town (with some faults, but so far only Richmond seems to have no issue).....

Raki Smith ● 3116d

At the meeting on Friday Theo Dennison kept repeating the Watermans/Police Building was at a 'sensitive' issue stage, if this is the case surely this should be shared with the community who currently are highly 'sensitive' to any planning decisions or will this be handled in the same manner as Fridays meet with little notice given for time to respond as a community.

Martin Case ● 3116d

List of planning committee members is here:http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/mgCommitteeMailingList.aspx?ID=595The proposed Morrisons development has no link to the proposed Watermans development (other than proximity) and neither have anything to do with Cannes, though it's always fun for John to try and dish a bit of dirt. As Theo explained on Friday, LBH bid for the police station site but were outbid by London Green, who also have a very long lease on the Max Factor site (I think) presumably bought from Wesleyan Insurance whose brass plaque still adorns the building- or did last time I looked.@Neil - the size and massing were actually a bit bigger in the original proposal. They have reduced the size (slightly) and reconfigured the site as a result of feedback. As I said, I will try to resurrect the details of the earlier consultations.

Guy Lambert ● 3116d

Councillors make up the planning committee - you can find councillor's details and their various responsibilities on the Hounslow website.

Vanessa Smith ● 3116d

My understanding is that LBH is linked to this development with an unclarified link to the watermans  development. Agreed in principle at Cannes?My particular concern apart from those highlighted in this post  is the cosmetic,yet currently not fully unexplained affordable provision. Affordablelet for a period of time at a reduced rate then increased at 2% per month (verified) to align  with the commercial rent rateThose unable to afford have to leave.

John Todd ● 3116d

Sorry for my silly question, but who is on the "planning committee ", as they make some big decisions for us. I was just wondering the type of people on this committee and where they live.

Raki Smith ● 3116d

Are you kidding when you say people were "broadly supportive". Surely, if true, that was before we saw the actual plans regards bulk and scale including shadowing

Neil Chippendale ● 3116d

The council planning office cannot approve this application. It will come to planning committee and that's precisely why this is a time to continue listening as I have been since the first public meetings back last year (first one in the summer if I remember correctly). That consultation was broadly supportive of the scheme, I believe, though I will need to review the details before the planning committee.Who approved this site? Nobody, other than the local plan approving the site for mixed use development. This was approved before I was a councillor, I believe, and after consultation. And for what it's worth I agree that it should be mixed use, though that doesn't mean I agree with the current proposal (or disagree - see below).I'm very keen to hear from people, whatever their views on this (or any other) proposed development but I cannot reach a conclusion until I sit in the planning committee meeting on 9th February (I think, though the agenda has not yet been published) because if I do, I will not be permitted to vote.

Guy Lambert ● 3117d

Guy - the time for listening has come and gone. This isn't new news... these conversations have been going on since the sales of the site - now is the time for action. Theo made it very clear, despite his confusing presentation, that the council planning office can and will approve such unsavoury plans for Brentford despite what the local people want and need or indeed even if there are not additional essential amenities for this increased influx of people. In the case of Morrison's, I echo Alan's question... who approved that this site should turn into a ten storey residential eye sore? You say you are on the planning committee so you must have had a say here. You are in a position to advise and support people... so what say you? What role are you actually playing in support of the large percentage of your designated area who object to these plans around all the sites being used for high rise flats and what steps are you personally taking to challenge these developments now.

Lisa Deegan ● 3117d

Guy I appreciate your situation of representing the people but seriously who in their right mind would support this insane development? Also how did this developer get the right to turn this site into residential ? The whole thing stinks and people would like to see councillors make a stand against this massive 10 story building! You are one of the best councillors always out there supporting us please support us now. I hope you were listening when The headmaster of St Paul's School gave his heart felt plea that this is not the right development for the school children , his school and Brentford.

Alan Branch ● 3117d

Hounslow council have not sold the Morrisons site - it was never theirs to sell! Essential Living bought the site off whomever the previous freeholder was - not Hounslow.I worked to get the public meeting set up for Friday and attended in listening mode. Contrary to rumours, there are some people who welcome redevelopment of the Morrisons site and my job description is to represent people who live in Brentford Ward (technically this development is in Syon ward but it is clearly of importance to Brentford residents as well).I would also say that as a member of the Planning Committee I am legally obliged to enter the planning meeting with an open mind. That doesn't stop me engaging with locals beforehand and I'm more than happy to meet with - or receive written evidence or remarks from - anybody who wishes to express a point of viewMy post to Raymond Havelock was to point out that what he said was not in accordance my understanding of the proposal, nor what was said on Friday.

Guy Lambert ● 3117d