Forum Topic

Redevelopment of the site containing Morrisons

Have watched this and the arguments. One thing that seems to be missing is the infrastructure to support this. The main high street is not getting bigger and the traffic flows are going to increase and while the council will see a revenue increase with rates and taxes I am not seeing a plan for the infrastructure to support this. Are we just putting more People and parking into the same sized street with the same traffic management? Just saying....

David Cockle ● 3016d28 Comments

Mark SkuseI have just asked a GWQ tenant about problems.But I have been told there are private and social tenants in all blocks, although they have different entrances.So what problems have you had at GWQ?

Bernard Allen ● 3011d

'There are issues with 'affordable' tenants in GWQ (and elsewhere), some of which I have recently been heavily involved in, but this is an entirely different model. GWQ is largely privately owned, with shared ownership and social tenants in a separate block.'  So you believe that mixing these tenancies up at the Morrison's site will mean that the problems ongoing at GWQ will not be repeated in this new development? I fail to see how that will happen in the real world.

Mark Skuse ● 3011d

Guy neither of these are going to be Full Sized supermarkets.Even ES admit that.It will be a Lidl Light the same as in West Ealing and a Simply M&S which will be about the same size as those found at Motorway services or Waterloo Station.As for the Ballymore. If that ever happens. So far not one major retailer has any confidence in an untried venue. They do not see the infrastructure or affluence to support the footfall which will be dependent on ...car parking and shoppers from further afield.Can you also confirm or allay rumours that ES are to market the Flats to multinational corporation overseas workers on long term secondments like IBM and not to local or even London residents?

Raymond Havelock ● 3012d

Agreed, and it will have two full sized supermarkets: one will be a combined Lidl/M&S a similar size to the existing Morrisons.The other will be from a different operator, in the Ballymore development - can't put my finger on the size at the moment but it's not a mini, it's full sized with it's own parking.

Guy Lambert ● 3014d

The Brentford area needs a full sized supermarket, otherwise as the previous poster says you will need a car to go to a supermarket.  A Lidl, small M&S, and some local mini markets dont fulfill that function.  They are just stop gaps for shopping.

Emma Renton ● 3014d

Well let's hope the promise of a 'household name' opening a supermarket there in a few years time holds more water than the same promise made to the people of Acton.

Keith Iddon ● 3014d

The supermarket(s) on site will together be bigger than the existing Morrisons. The one a few hundred metres down the road will be the supermarket in the Ballymore scheme which is full sized and likely to be built in 2019/2020 as I understand it, and is likely to be operated by a 'household name' national chain.As to health services, GPs are independent contractors and free to set up where they see fit. I believe a doctors surgery was set aside in GWQ but no practice could be found to set up there (maybe because of rents, I don't know). There is an acute shortage of doctors across London which is only likely to get worse, particularly following Brexit.There are issues with 'affordable' tenants in GWQ (and elsewhere), some of which I have recently been heavily involved in, but this is an entirely different model. GWQ is largely privately owned, with shared ownership and social tenants in a separate block. The Morrisons site will be entirely rental with different tenancies mixed in together and enjoying precisely the same facilities and services.

Guy Lambert ● 3014d

Helpful, thanks Adam. I think the key words here are"supposed to".  What we need is a "legally obliged to"!

Catherine Jones ● 3014d

..so on that basis what is the point of LBH spending taxpayers money and employing people to have a regeneration and local plan if it can be completely usurped by a GLA plan?What the GLA want could completely destroy the town like it has with other parts nearer to Central London.Is this something the LBH should be more open about to residents and not just roll over when the GLA says "Roll Over"?

Raymond Havelock ● 3014d

.. and if there is no 'approval' yet, might I suggest that anyone involved in such approval that might happen to read this also read the Local Plan, and assess their professional and legal obligations in respect to its requirements.

Lorne Gifford ● 3014d

that's all right Adam, your post are very much appreciated as it's helped me build up a picture of how LBH works and what the corporate and individual motivations might be behind the decisions. Always good to get a feel for the who, what and why of things. 42m high block of flats surrounded by low Victorian buildings in a conservation area though...

Lorne Gifford ● 3014d

Entirely up to you what you do, but I do rather despair when I repeatedly try to explain what courses of action are open to people in an attempt to be helpful, and instead they go down a route that isn't even an option.I won't get back the time I spent posting, you won't get back the time you spent writing to the Ombudsman.

Adam Beamish ● 3015d

Hi AdamOn the grounds that everyone, public and private sector alike, have to abide by the laws that govern society. We don't live in soviet era East-Germany and therefore don't have to abide by the dictates of the local Stazi, although the legal advice put it more eloquently.

Lorne Gifford ● 3015d

Oh dear Lorne, why have you done that ?.Firstly, at the present time, there is no "approval" for the Ombudsman to overrule.  There's a committee resolution to approve, which has to go back to the GLA, and if the GLA confirms that it is happy for the LPA to determine the application then a decision will be issued.Secondly, even if there was an approval, the Ombudsman cannot quash or overrule a planning approval.  The only mechanism for doing so is by seeking a judicial review of the approval, once that approval has been issued.I'm sure I explained that some ago in one of my previous posts on an older Morrisons thread to avoid people wasting their time - why don't people listen !?!.

Adam Beamish ● 3015d

The problem with this development is that by approving it LBH have ignored the requirements of the local plan.  Since the local plan is a key planning document that sets out the rules for developments I have requested the local government ombudsman investigate on the grounds of maladministration, and over-rule the approval.  If you set rules you need to abide by them, local councils included.

Lorne Gifford ● 3015d

Or maybe he means Glad's newsagent and 'superstore'..

Keith Iddon ● 3015d

Or the teeny-weeny Sainsburys in GWQ?

Reg Ghosh ● 3015d

Repeating a post I make regularly, new or improved health facilities for new residents are supposed to be funded via the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) the Council charges on new developments in accordance with the Council's adopted CIL charging schedule.CIL is non-negotiable, if a development is CIL liable then the developer has to pay it (unlike affordable housing provision which is subject to viability considerations).Hence a Council cannot refuse an application on the impact of the proposed development in terms of access to medical services etc.

Adam Beamish ● 3015d

I think Guy is referring to that wonderful 'supermarket' Costcutter, Raymond.lol.

Keith Iddon ● 3015d

And where are the new doctors' surgeries to look after the health of all these people coming into our little town?

Catherine Jones ● 3015d

What other supermarket is there just up the road?Neither will be a proper supermarket, More a rich or poor mini store.Lidl is hardly a full range supermarket and a tiny M&S is likewise a rather expensive option.Neither will be adequate in the vein of Sainsbury's or Morrisons etc.So what exactly is the 'benefit'

Raymond Havelock ● 3015d

The Council always knows best Mark

Paul Fisher ● 3015d

'A proportion will be at rents reduced by up to 55% compared with market rent and nominated by the council, ie for people on the housing list'.  Clearly Hounslow Council has not learned from the mixing of Council and Private tenants in Great West Quarter and the problems that has caused in that development.

Mark Skuse ● 3015d

Difficult for foreigners (or anybody else) to buy rented flats and I don't see why they would drive to a supermarket when they have one downstairs (2 actually) and another a few hundred metres down the High St!These are private rented flats from a professional landlord of the type that is common in many other countries - and people make a home there long term. A proportion will be at rents reduced by up to 55% compared with market rent and nominated by the council, ie for people on the housing list.I voted against the proposal primarily because I think it's too big, because there are not enough reduced rent dwellings,  and because there are no developed plans for a temporary supermarket. Of course, I would prefer this to be a publicly-owned development as well, but at present we have a Conservative Government who have made publicly-owned housing development pretty near impossible.I also agree that we need investment in transport - buses, cycling and particularly rail.But the criticisms of this development are often misleading

Guy Lambert ● 3015d

What's to stop someone buying a flat and then either getting a car themselves9 might get a new job which requires one),or sub letting to someone who has a car? They will have to park somewhere. Still, it makes it easier for foreigners to buy these flats and leave them empty without having to worry about anyone parking in their allocated slot coz there won't be one.

Keith Iddon ● 3015d

Once this development goes ahead, people will need a car to drive to the nearest supermarket.

Ian Fillingham ● 3015d

The public transport is already at breaking point in the vicinity. Buses are full and heavily disrupted and the trains,even with 8 and 10 carriages are now standing room only way past 09.50.As for the choosing to not have a car. That's fine if you work locally, but more jobs have been and are being relocated away from here - because of a complete lack of joined up thinking and infrastructure than are being created and what is being created is generally low skilled or hourly work.What is being destroyed is a cohesive community here. it is certainly not perfect, recent events show that, but it has been stable for a long time.The Morrisons development is more like a long term Hotel, it is not the sort of place to lay down roots and have an existence and most certainly not going to be part of the community. It is a halfway house between student accommodation and a Hotel but proper homes they won't be.As for the salaries that this dearth of young professionals will have to be earning to live there, well there are far better choices for your money.And what if your job moves away from reasonable public transport accessibility? And have to rely on a car?Do you have to move and lose your home too?  Some society.

Raymond Havelock ● 3015d

I am not sure what your point is? The new flats are to be 'car free' with no parking provided, they will be aimed at 'young professionals' and many of those choose not to own a car in London. They use Zip Car and the like. I was driving on the highways of Greater Toronto last week. They have plenty of lanes, up to 32 on one stretch, but the traffic jams are horrific, worse than the M25. The city would like to introduce road pricing but given the absence of comprehensive public transport system this is deemed politically unacceptable. Fortunately here in London we do have good public transport and traffic density is managed. My objection the Morrisons development is because it is too large and ugly!!

Iain Muir ● 3015d