Forum Topic

Morrisons Dev - Planning consent given by Council

I am bl..dy disgusted with the Councillors who voted for this development contrary to the Local Plan.  This is what we residents believe to be the benchmark for any development.  This absolute out and out greed as evidenced in Essential Living was compounded by Councillors whose dereliction of duty has been, quite plainly, evidenced.  SHAME ON YOU.  I am so incensed that I cannot seem to calm down.  You can be sure that both the Brentford Councillors, Guy and Mel, voted against this as well as Sheila O'Reilly, Tony Louki and one other, I forget who.  There was one abstainer and 3 gave apologies.We now need to ensure we start sending objections to the Planning Inspectorate/Secretary of State.  GET ON BOARD NOW.  Write to them and show them just how much you are disgusted with this decision which saw elected Councillors debase its residents.PLEASE NO 'I TOLD YOU SO' COMMENTS.  GET ON BOARD AND WRITE A LETTER.

Eileen Henderson ● 3050d18 Comments

If you look at old pictures of Brentford High street back in the 1920's  with industrial buildings right up to the pavement on one side and three story buildings on the other, you travelled through a dark corridor from start to finish.Then along came the plans to build a dual carriageway from Kew Bridge to Hounslow, and a lot of buildings were demolished to make way for this road, which created a lot more light on to the high street making a lot better place. But now it seems that through the greed of developers they want to turn the clock back on Brentford and create the dark place it was in the 1920's, by building high buildings on the kerb side, and they call this progress.

Bernard Allen ● 3049d

I am outraged but not at all surprised. I can't help wondering if something as out-of-keeping as this would be waved through in Chiswick? Somehow I think not. Poor old Brentford, take a good look at that picture of the Essential Living monstrosity, because soon most of the town will look like this.

Jo Francis ● 3049d

I suspect that you are right that some councillors have a minimal interpretation of their duties regarding major developments. They should at the very least read the design and access statement and visit the site in addition to reading the officers report and following up unclear points before the planning meeting. They can many of those things long before the officers report is published. I also think that they should all get the design and access statement in hard copy because they are often in large format and are not best viewed on an average-sized computer screen. It is something they are meant to read and I feel sure that many do not do so.The report on viability assessments which I linked earlier gives a far more negative picture of their usage that seems to have been your experience, and it gives examples from major developments around London. I still think that this is not the purely technical matter that you suggest it is. At the very least this needs to be debated and councillors need to have access to all the relevant documents. If anything is kept from them then we cannot be sure that the sort of sharp or negligent practices cited in the Guardian report are not involved.So my point, I think, remains. If councillors don't have access to all the information and if planning officers say "we want 40% but something is better than nothing" then this is a permanent invitation to developers to pay their specialist advisers to find various ways of circumventing the requirement. And that, according to the Guardian article is exactly what is happening.You say that "usually" in your experience the different viability assessments vary "in terms of some figures" but that they are overall consistent. I wonder whether "usually" is a good enough grounds for saying that there is no need for councillors to probe this aspect of an application. On the basis of the Guardian report and other such materials I suggest they there is such a need. If on questioning an airline said that its planes "usually" don't fly with inadequate inadequate inspection and maintenance I think that you probably wouldn't book a ticket with them.

David Pavett ● 3049d

Just as a point in general, in my experience some(certainly not all) Councillors do not review any of the application documents before the committee meeting, they simply read the Officer report, turn up, listen to the presentations and then vote.  Viability reports are often treated as sensitive information because their content might otherwise by used by a competitor of the applicant to their detriment.As a planning consultant, I'm frequently working on projects where applicants use viability assessments to demonstrate that on-site affordable or an off-site contribution can't be provided.  As a planner, I have virtually no involvement in that process, bar ensuring that mandatory payments like CIL etc. reflect the scheme for what permission is sought.  I'll review the assessment, but unless I spot a glaring factual error or something looks obviously incorrect then I'll accept what the assessment concludes.Don't forget that nearly always when a developer raises viability arguments their viability assessment will be independently assessed by a specialist third party of the Council's choosing, the costs of which the applicant has to meet.There's no direct contact or collusion between the applicant's viability consultant and the viability consultant acting on behalf of the LPA, obviously that would be wrong (and both consultants would be acting unprofessionally against their codes of conduct etc).Usually in my experience there's differences between the two parties in terms of some figures, particularly build costs, but the overall conclusion is consistent.What more can a Planning Officer say ?.  Planning Officers are normally only qualified in the planning profession (but inevitably with the job comes a degree of knowledge of other areas, like Building Control etc.) but what they're not is suitably qualified or knowledgeable to comment as to whether build costs, the values of the resulting units created, the value of the land etc. is accurate.Hence the reliance on independent assessment, and why Planning Officers can't really say much beyond "40% is the target, but a viability assessment has been submitted with the application, independently assessed and found to be robust, so on that basis the Council has to accept that the scheme isn't viable".

Adam Beamish ● 3049d

I accept what you say Adam.But I've seen this officer present a few times and has been very good, diligent, detailed and broad based and clearly interested.This did not seem anything like. And that was an observation .

Raymond Havelock ● 3049d

Thanks for the response.I think that your comment on viability needs further consideration. You say that the planning officer's comments on viability were entirely accurate and that 40% is just an aspiration which in reality may not be met if independent assessment shows meeting the target not to be viable. The problem with this view is that it accepts viability assessments and the planning officer's response to them as a purely technical matter. This is not the case. Developers are using viability assessments to run rings round planning officers and councillors. They are well able to dress their figures up to get the results that they want and in some cases consultants even get bonuses according to the number of affordable homes they are able to assess out of a scheme. Details on the how viability scams are working all across London are given in this Guardian article www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordablesocial-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwrightOne of the many points in the article is that the independent evaluations are not shown to councillors and sometimes are even withheld from them. None was made available to the councillors the Brentford development yesterday. There are two viability reports for the development on the planning website. One is the one commissioned by the developer. The other is entirely blank!

David Pavett ● 3049d

"It was more like she was doing what she was instructed to do but not really committed to her words."Not for me to defend anyone but careful Raymond, I don't know if Marilyn is but I'm MRTPI and if you posted something like that about me on a public forum I wouldn't be happy because you'd be implying that I breached my professional code of conduct, something that isn't to be taken lightly.

Adam Beamish ● 3049d

Marilyn Smiths body language was far more revealing than her presentation.She was clearly reading something that was not her wording and did not look at all comfortable with it. It was more like she was doing what she was instructed to do but not really committed to her words.She sputtered and fumbled with answers and seemed oblivious to points of correction.But above all indicated what a failure her and her superiors have been in achieving the Councils desired goals of affordable and correct ratios of housing.So what the heck were Labour Councillors doing in voting for a failed objective in breach of their own policies?But more to the point why are they employing expensive executives who are failing to uphold the local policy and plan and finding loopholes to justify it?Hardly servicing the borough but definitely servicing the developer.

Raymond Havelock ● 3049d

Some very valid points David, particularly about the GLA, although in my experience the GLA (who supported the scheme at Stage 1, see para. 4.3) is unlikely to now take the decision away from LBH.But worth trying to lobby the GLA as opposed to a costly JR process once the decision has been issued.As for the Planning Officer said, having worked in the business for 19 years what was said is entirely accurate.      40% is a target, an aspiration, but if a developer submits viability evidence which is independently reviewed and confirmed that demonstrates a scheme providing a lower % is viable and nothing more, an LPA would be foolish (and at risk of costs being awarded against it on appeal) to ignore that.

Adam Beamish ● 3049d

I attended the Planning Committee meeting and agree that it was a bad evening for planning and for Brentford. There were a number of things about the evening that particularly struck me.1. The meeting was chaired with a distinct lack of impartiality. I found the chairman's openly disparaging attitude to Mel Collins to be seriously out of order. During Mel's contributions he expressed frustration through body language, made disparaging comments (some of which were audible through his microphone, sunk his head in his hands and other such clearly negative signs. How is it that a major public committee, taking decisions of such long-term significance for residents' lives, feels free to conduct meetings in this manner?2. Planning Officer Marilyn Smith explained why she thought levels of affordable housing below Hounslow's own targets (not to speak of those of Sadiq Khan) should be accepted. She said (I took it down verbatim): "I can assure you whenever I meet developers my starting point is 40% affordable housing ... but you have to be pragmatic, you have to be viable. If there's a chance you can't get 40, that you can get some less, then you have to weight up. But you always start trying to get 40%. ... If it's not viable then the developer won't do it and you'll end up with nothing there ... Yes, I would prefer to have 40%, I always do. However, 25% is still 55 units ... and that's a heck of a lot more than a lot of the schemes that we've put through, so that IS a benefit". What developer hearing a chief planning officer talking like that is going to feel that they are constrained by the Borough's targets? Marilyn Smith's statement seemed to me to drive a horse and cart though any such targets. It might be worth asking the lead member for planning (cllr Steve Curran) what he thinks of this approach.(3) A powerful case against approving the develop was made by Tony Louki, Guy Lambert, and Mel Collins. None of the councillors who voted for the development made a case as to why it should be supported. This had every appearance of dumb block voting. I found it stunning that those councillors should feel able to make such decisions without giving their reasons, not one of them. That is literally dumb voting.I think that the explanation offered by some that the councillors who voted for the development were acting on the leader's instructions is wrong. It is so simplistic that it undermines serious criticism of the process. That is not generally the way things work. It is more likely that some of them, at least, were thinking of pleasing the leader with the upcoming AGM of the Labour group when council positions will be determined. If it is all put down to direct orders of the leader then (a) no proof can be found, (b) it is probably wrong, (c) it provides easy comebacks for those involved.Finally, I am sure that complaining to the inspectorate is a complete waste of time and effort. No inspector will overturn the decision. It might make more sense to complain to the GLA which now has to approve the development. Point 11.1 of the officers report recommends "That planning permission be granted subject to Stage II referral to the GLA...". This is surely where the complaints should be directed to especially given the Mayor's apparent insistence on meeting affordable housing targets. I would complain to the GLA and the Mayor.Judicial Review has been suggested. For that you need money and lots of it. In the case of the Nishkam School in Osterley we went to JR. We believed we had a strong case but the High Court Judge was totally dismissive. It cost us around £30,000 and we lost. I don't regret having done it but the effort involved was enormous. Think about the JR idea very carefully.

David Pavett ● 3050d

https://planninghelp.cpre.org.uk/improve-where-you-live/what-to-do-if-a-development-breaks-the-rules/write-to-your-mp-and-the-local-government-ombudsman'..write to the Local Government Ombudsman....need to show that the local authority is guilty of maladministration.''Examples of maladministration- Not following it's own rules, or the laws- Breaking formal commitments or promises'I'd suggest that publishing a set of commitments and rules (the Local Plan) and then completely ignoring them constitutes maladministration.Interestingly Essential Living was only incorporated 3 years ago and has a holding company registered in Jersey. https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09145042Their business model appears to require cheaply servicing an extremely high debt gearing. A small climb in interest rates might well see them disappear. Wouldn't that be nice.

Lorne Gifford ● 3050d

Good point Warrick these councillors should be named & shamed!! It's such a depressing future for Brentford, the worst council decision in my 22 years of living here. I have to say how much I appreciate the hard work and effort to all those that helped raise the objections and put together an incredibley impressive case against this ludicrous building. I can't remember everyone but Martin Case, Andy Ward & Nick Kilby , Deborah & Angela Burton , you guys and the others that contributed deserve a medal for the amount of time you put into this.

Alan Branch ● 3050d

I do feel I should point out that the Officer being referred to, whom obviously I know from my previous employment at LBH (which also reflects how long she has worked at LBH), certainly was and I believe still is a local resident.And like it or loathe it whilst if an Officer has local knowledge that can be helpful, the fact remains that they can't be influenced in any way and have to put their personal preferences etc. to one side.  Indeed, if an Officer was directly affected by an application they would stand back and let another colleague handle it.And as I often comment, don't forget that if an application is refused and goes to appeal, the Inspector who ultimately determines that appeal will be handpicked to ensure they have no local relationship or interest.

Adam Beamish ● 3050d

I arrived just in time to see this and stuck in a doorway could hear if not see very much.But it was what I heard that appalled.The applicants put a raft of points that dismissed everything pertinent and relevant to planning protocol. The sort of thing that Adam is sharp on.But they evaded almost everything.Cllr Collins managed to ask questions that wormed out answers. But Essential Living avoided many of the questions fully. Keeping things back. Like the fact the two stores will be Metro versions and not proper stores.The worst performance was by an officer called Marilyn. It was truly shameless. A totally biased and slanted diatribe full of out of date facts. " Larger Supermarket" when it is now two smaller food stores. " Removal of a whole floor but no mention of it being simply added to another part of the development.Tried to justify hi rise, dismissed the Town plan as irrelevant and effectively stated that Brentford has to be completely changed and people forced into change. Who does she think she is?Clearly above democracy or telling the truth.But the complete bias from a public servant and utter contempt for the local populaces and fawning of the applicants was disturbing and should have raised questions from the committeeWorse still is that the only questions asked were by Brentford ward committee members and two from Osterley, one of whom put up the most clear, concise and spirited objection but also managed to clearly highlight the planning deficiencies. The complete lack of pertinent or probing questions of clarification of detail was absent from all those who voted for and were all prompted from a nod by one councillor.One would have expected at least one councillor for to ask a proper question or put a rationale for approval. But nothing.Just another example of one end of this borough kicking the other. Hounslow historic problem and why it is the mess it is.So we get an unaffordable to many Simply M&S and a Mini Lidl, like in West Ealing, but lose a proper full size full range affordable supermarket.Less parking and a huge overpowering monolith with overdense accommodation, barely better than good student digs.And how those silent councillors or that officer can sleep with themselves, knowing they will impede the welfare of local schoolchildren for generations is beyond me.But this is yet again the meddling of the regeneration squad and the best thing that this council can do is get rid of them and get people in who do not have an agenda and influence over too many.

Raymond Havelock ● 3050d

It is very disappointing to find that this has happened but not unexpected especially when you read that the officer representing the council bureaucracy  has supported the application. I'm pleased that Mel and Guy (as well as others) voted against it. What I would like to know is who we're the councillors who voted for it and by what margin? What reasons did the council officer give regarding the local plan ratio not being met? In my opinion the whole consultation process is a just a farce as unfortunately too often the driving force behind this process are the faceless bureaucrats behind the scenes supporting these decisions and giving little reason for their support. After all they don't have to live near a looming, overbearing, ugly, monstrosity, and have their local supermarket removed for 3 years then reduced in size to a local mini market.

Warrick Chamberlain ● 3050d

Don't even think about writing to the Planning Inspectorate.  No third party rights of appeal exist, so the Inspectorate is legally unable to intervene.You can write to the SoS (must be prior to the decision being issued by the LPA) asking the SoS to 'call-in' the application.Again, I wouldn't advise this, the SoS will only do so where the issue is of greater than local importance, and I'm sorry but this isn't the case with the Morrisons application.The best and indeed essentially the only route would be to seek a judicial review of the decision on the basis that it is wholly contrary to the provisions of the Local Plan.Obviously I know these things because it's my job to know and I've got plenty of experience (admittedly using on the receiving end) of communities seek to either call-in or JR a decision.

Adam Beamish ● 3050d

Are you going to write a letter?

Eileen Henderson ● 3050d

You sound as though you are surprised?Another pre determined decision instructed by the Leader

Paul Fisher ● 3050d