Forum Topic

Sarah Trimmer  and Private Eye

Wonderful piece in Nooks and Corners column of the new edition of 'Private Eye' regarding the destruction of Sarah Trimmer's school founded in 1786.The narrative is that Hounslow council refused repeated applications to demolish the adjoining chapel and also an application to convert the school into flats was way back in 2001. In February last year an application for partial demolition to turn the school into 3 residential units was again turned down.Then in May 2016 IDM - the developers - without warning or authorisation or listed building consent, removed the roof and demolished the chimneys, claiming that the former was overloaded and the latter unsafe. Enforcement demanded that what was left of the school be covered and protected, which was done. IDM then started sand blasting the now cracked walls, until a temporary stop order was imposed. "In February, incomprehensibly, Hounslow granted listed building consent for rebuilding the roof and rear and side walls, although in May it refused permission for conversion into 3 bungalow flats. The council's own report on this confirms that the school 'is an important 18th century building, considered to be of national importance, and its special appearance and interest must be retained. So 'it is considered that this proposal does not adequately value the architectural integrity of the listed building, and that the proposed works would fail to preserve its special interest and setting'.But what is the council going to do to enforce the law and make IDM behave?"The article then mentions the Westminster case of the pub that was demolished, and Westminster insisting that the developer rebuild it before the site could be sold."Surely feeble Hounslow could and should do the same, for all that remains today of Mrs. Trimmer's charitable legacy are the remains of the west and south walls."The article then poses the question that as with Westminster when the Eye highlighted it, "would the council use its powers to punish offenders and make sure they make no money from the cleared site. A hefty fine? Why not a prison sentence? Why not indeed? By its actions IDM West London has scarcely shown itself to be a deserving members of society".Don't hold your breath if you expect Hounslow to find their backbone.

Vanessa Smith ● 2941d39 Comments

From Cllr. Savin standing in for Guy Lambert this week:"Well that's the fun over, as we move on to the serious side of Brentford, and unfortunately there are a few sorry reports this week. As hard as we Councillors, along with many residents and council officers, try to help make TW8 even greater, there are others who don't. And this week I am going to give the 'Booby' prize to the developers of the Sarah Trimmer school site. Many Brentfordtonians know this building which is listed and a monument to education, as being the first Sunday school in the land. This led the way for the full scale school education system we know today. A planning application granted for building 3 separate apartments has been ignored by the developers, and the site has now become a travesty. The Council's planning team along with Guy, Mel and myself and local residents are on the case, apparently so are Private Eye magazine, but I will leave that to your imagination!"What exactly does 'on the case' mean? From where I am the council both members and officers are most definitely NOT on anything,(except perhaps some waccy baccy) too little - too late. Why not use the planning enforcement legislation to its fullest extent? Instead of blaming the developers, they have only done what they thought they could get away with and in the process have made Hounslow look stupid, feeble and totally ineffective.

Vanessa Smith ● 2925d

Hazel is right there are quite a few conservators who could advise on this project, and Adam is also right Hounslow have been a right load of dimwits (and that's being polite) over this, but having had the (dubious) delight of sitting through a lot of last week's planning committee can't say I'm shocked at their lackadaisical approach, words fail me.

Vanessa Smith ● 2929d

Except that the roof was removed and a bloody tarpaulin deemed sufficient to protect it from the elements of winter.If this is keeping an eye on it, I shudder to think what ignoring it would be.

Keith Iddon ● 2929d

I agree with Adam's comment about fake and pastiche with regard to the church. My guess is that this "new" external cladding will wear very badly and look tatty in 10 years whereas the old did not look too bad after 100 years.Months ago they issued a stop notice with regard to the removal of the roof and so I can't understand why they haven't repeated it.There must also be a network of local authority planning depts through which Hounslow could warn others of the disrespect of these developers towards our historic buildings.For what it's worth I think that LBH should force the developers to build a very high quality replica (including in it the two remaining walls and as much of the original materials as possible) There is a local expert on Brentford brickmakers whose advice could, I feel sure, be sought as to sources of suitable bricks contemporary with Mrs Trimmer. I think Historic England should be asked by LBH to set the standard of the building and the materials - including those to copy the very interesting and unusual interior of the roof - and to recommend a conservation architect to oversee. All these are aspects about which they developers either know or wish to know nothing.

Hazel Dakers ● 2929d

To start, I should make the point that any unauthorised works to a listed building is a criminal offence (upon summary conviction) which is likely to be why there isn't much of an update in this case unlike a bog standard unauthorised extension to a house or such like.There is the power to require developers to cease all work, either by way of a stop notice or an injunction, but such powers are used sparingly, as a stop notice does leave an LPA liable to compensation if permission/consent is subsequently granted.I will say that listed building enforcement can be a nightmare, I'm reminded of the Hermitage in Heston which was a listed building which partially burnt down in rather suspicious circumstances and how a door from the building remained in Mike Jordan's office for ages afterwards.  Give me trees any day - at least when you turned up it was pretty obvious what had been done and whether it should have done or not, which is never so straightforward when it comes to listed buildings.Equally I don't think this saga has been handled well by LBH, given the recent history of refused applications and the developer's ongoing actions - to me a stop notice should have been issued well before now.Speaking personally, the only 'good' thing that has come out of the redevelopment of the church is the retention of the building, I've never been a fan of the actual development and even the exterior looks so clean and fresh it looks rather 'fake' to me, abit like a pastiche.

Adam Beamish ● 2929d

"there is very little left of the original structure."So do you think we should give it up as a bad job, or continue to press for it to be rebuilt with as much as possible of the original materials, as we are currently doing? I think the latter.

Guy Lambert ● 2929d

I fear it is already too late, there is very little left of the original structure.

Reg Ghosh ● 2929d

Prior to the current development, is it right that Sarah Trimmer Hall has since ? only been used as a storage space? I can't say in all of my time in Brentford that I have seen a single soul go in or out of the building. The plaque on the wall became progressively illegible and I wouldn't be surprised if many a person never looked at it or necessarily had any interest in the building. It's a pity that the building wasn't open as a little museum, particularly when the Musical Museum was housed in the church next door. Such a shame all round.

Anne England ● 2929d

Guy, surely the Council have the power to simply serve a legal stop all works notice on the Developer before they go too far unless its now too late?Perhaps Adam can clarify if such a power exists for the Council to serve?

Paul Fisher ● 2929d

It was enough to make you weep watching the news yesterday talking about listing various places and the reason why this was started.After the war it was tempting to tear down anything that hadn't been bombed and start afresh, but because some of the buildings were worth keeping listing was started to give them a degree of protection. So what Adolf couldn't manage, modern developers and Hounslow can - oh! the irony of it. Not sure 'unhappy' quite conveys the fury of people about this, dearie me.

Vanessa Smith ● 2929d

Let's just say that both planning officers and the planning enforcement team are in conversation with the developers, and have made it clear that they are unhappy with this development and have called for it to be removed. To say more at this stage may be inappropriate.

Guy Lambert ● 2929d

Guy - what is the Council doing about the structure?

Reg Ghosh ● 2929d

Just been past and the steel structure forming either a new roofline or support for another floor level is nothing like the original building at all.  Somebody is holding two fingers up to the community.

Sarah Felstead ● 2936d

It's an automatic generic reply, nothing more nothing less, clearly the 10 day response window doesn't capture all scenarios.  Normally if Officers receive reports of unauthorised works to listed buildings or protected trees you will get an Officer on site within the hour - they are the priority calls, in part because such works are not merely unauthorised and liable to enforcement action but unlike building an unauthorised porch to a semi they are also a criminal offence, so it's vital Officers get down there straight away, collect evidence, use their powers of caution under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act etc.Saying all that, as I know only too well, actually getting to speak to Officers rather than a switchboard is 95% of the battle these days.

Adam Beamish ● 2936d

Matt Robinson, the relevant enforcement officer is on leave according to his email. So following the instruction in his automatic reply, for urgent matters to contact the team email. This I did only to receive an automatic reply that they will respond in 10 days. So this is urgent response?

Hazel Dakers ● 2936d

Agreed, but I didn't see many posts extolling the virtues of Hounslow's Enforcement Team afew years back when several unscrupulous developers were fined tens of thousands of pounds (including if I recall correctly £154k which at the time was the biggest planning fine in the UK) following enforcement notices served in my time (the easy bit) and subsequent legal proceedings including proceeds of crime actions by my successor (the harder bit).  So Hounslow did certainly show its teeth, yet what is happening next door to where I'm sat now is still going on.

Adam Beamish ● 2936d

No-one is saying anything is easy, just 'balancing' the actions of one local authority as opposed to another, to prove it can be done if the effort is put in. I also appreciate that people do move around local authorities so continuity is sometimes very difficult, and also that the financial position is dire. It is also the situation that people have heavier caseloads, but notwithstanding any of that, the fact remains that councils DO have powers and if  the political leadership and will is there things can be made to happen. Developers will go on taking the mickey until and unless planning authorities show their teeth.

Vanessa Smith ● 2936d

Just to balance things out, I submitted an application back in early  February to Westminster and, having been initially told in early April that it would be reported to committee on 2nd May, for no particular reason other than Officers being busy, that didn't actually happen until July.Similarly, I'm involved in several applications to LBRUT that have been with the Council for over a year now, and essentially haven't been progressed to conclusion because Case Officers keep leaving etc.Quite understandably, most of Joe Public only sees what goes on within their own local authority, whereas I have the pleasure/misfortune to experience most local authorities on a daily basis, and from that position of both experience and knowledge, my perspective is that LBH is by far from the worst planning authority I deal with.And obviously having spent many years, including 5 at Hounslow, holding the poisoned chalice of running planning enforcement teams, I can say with authority that it's nothing like as easy or straightforward as you might like it to be.Not defending, not excusing, but just bringing abit of informed balance to the thread.

Adam Beamish ● 2936d

Realistically of course a developer will be interested in the profits - but there is planning legislation for a purpose and conditions can be placed on a planning application. And in the case of a listed building there are a multitude of other regulations that must be adhered to. Westminster council are making the  comedians that knocked down the pub rebuild it to a standard as near as possible to the original. So it can be done (see below) - what is Hounslow's excuse?"A 5 day public inquiry took place at Westminster City Hall in May 2016, where the Planning Inspectorate heard the developer CTLX’s appeal against the enforcement notice served by the council, which demanded that the pub be rebuilt as close to the original as possible.The inquiry received evidence from local campaign groups, residents, councillors and Historic England.The Planning Inspector dismissed the appeals lodged by the developers and has ruled in favour of Westminster City Council, giving CLTX 2 years to rebuild the pub.Cllr Robert Davis MBE DL, Westminster City Council Cabinet Member for the Built Environment, said: “This decision is a just reward for the work of all the local campaigners who have fought so hard to right this wrong.""Westminster City Council has stood side by side with residents to demand that the Carton Tavern should be rebuilt brick by brick.""Our planning officers and residents made a strong case in May at the public inquiry. I am pleased that we have won the battle and I look forward to seeing the Carlton Tavern turned back into a thriving community pub.""This sends a clear message to developers across the country that they cannot ride roughshod over the views of local communities.”

Vanessa Smith ● 2936d

I think developers ara only interested in the bottom line of profits. We have heard it all before, especially that wonderful pharse, LESSONS WILL BE LEARNT!!!!

Nicholas Beard ● 2936d

"supervised and monitored to a much higher level" ? I don't believe it has been supervised or monitored at all.

Hazel Dakers ● 2937d

I believe that if the showers that be had actually had any interest in the rich heritage and history of this borough and Brentford in particular, and in preserving what is left of that, then the redevelopment of this unique building would have been supervised and monitored to a much higher level.Perhaps if they had spent a small % of the time and effort they spent on preserving the house prices of the residents of Church St.then we would not be where we are.

Keith Iddon ● 2937d

Planning enforcement – overviewWhat is a breach of planning control?A breach of planning control is defined in section 171A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as:•the carrying out of development without the required planning permission; or•failing to comply with any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission has been granted.Any contravention of the limitations on, or conditions belonging to, permitted development rights, under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, constitutes a breach of planning control against which enforcement action may be taken.Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 17b-001-20140306Revision date: 06 03 2014

Vanessa Smith ● 2937d

"You have to stop just blaming "the council". Why? The council as the local planning authority have enforcement powers, it requires political heft to use them, and Hounslow are notoriously feeble in this respect. These developers behave like thugs, Hounslow need to stand their ground over this, 'advising' is not enough - telling them is what is required.

Vanessa Smith ● 2937d

I don't think that's quite what Val meant though it may be all that these developers understand........;)

Hazel Dakers ● 2937d

a few residents with blunt instrument ;0)

Bernard Allen ● 2937d

Who has the power to take it away?

Hazel Dakers ● 2937d

It is clear that IDM do not understand what "conservation" is or why a building might have been listed. Carefully preserving as much as possible of the old while replacing in the same style, materials and dimensions what could not be kept, would have given them a building worth much more to a single purchaser that wanted a building of some historic value/merit than this fake.You have to stop just blaming "the council". However hard Hounslow officers have tried to advise them, the firm seems wilfully to do what it wants. At what stage is IDM's behaviour deemed so bad that the building can just be taken away from them?

Valerie Bott ● 2937d

Since picking up on your post, Paul, I have written the following to various at Hounslow and other interested reps of organisations with whom I have been in touch for a very long time about the Trimmer School:"I expect that you are all aware – or at least have a file to which you may refer - of the long running saga of the Trimmer School, a listed building in Brentford whose roof, developers and owners, removed without permission and were then given permission to knock down two of its four walls. They have been repeatedly refused permission to turn it into 3 units of accommodation.  At the time of the various demolitions they were told to keep the materials protected for re-use. It is likely that Mrs Trimmer’s husband, who had a large Brentford brick making business, supplied the bricks. The roof had a particularly interesting internal structure. Locally, despite the disastrous way in which matters have proceeded, there was an understanding that now, at least, an excellent conservation/reconstruction job would be carried out using processes and materials contemporary with the original building.  This morning a local resident has noted “A steel super-structure has been added showing the new roof line of Trimmer Hall.  Looks like building works has commenced over the weekend.”I know that photographs taken of the internal structure on behalf of the Brentford and Chiswick Local History Society as well as a major research report which unearths the rarity of the building in the history of education for the poor have been sent to Hounslow Planning Department. Would you please look into the current activity and explain to those of us who care about our local heritage what on earth is being permitted to go on – and what you are doing to have this matter corrected."

Hazel Dakers ● 2937d

Certainly looks more like steel than traditional wooden beams.

Paul Scullion ● 2937d

No steel in the old structure, are they not being made to rebuild in the original traditional methods?  If this costs them more then I am sure they will be sorry.

Sarah Felstead ● 2937d

A steel super-structure has been added showing the new roof line of Trimmer Hall.  Looks like building works has commenced over the weekend.

Paul Scullion ● 2937d

That is right what you say Hazel. I was looking at Uxbridge Redevelopment on u tube. Its a short film and you can get a good view of what the redevelopers can do if you ever knew Uxbridge. Anyway this film is in London street scene which has many films of towns. Not sure if Brentford features.

Nicholas Beard ● 2940d

I think it's a tragedy that Hounslow Council could not be trusted to ensure the preservation of one small but important listed building.20 flats between I think something over £1million and £750K and yet what's the betting that IDM will convince Hounslow that it is not financially viable for them to rebuild the Trimmer School to the highest standards for which English Heritage could ask?

Hazel Dakers ● 2940d

Apologies accepted.

Anne England ● 2941d

That's reassuring..

Keith Iddon ● 2941d

Don't worry Cllr Lambert is "on the case" as he keeps telling us with apologies in advance to Anne England

Paul Fisher ● 2941d

As do many of us - however we could all be forgiven for thinking that our local council would have managed to get a grip on things since then. Given the fuss over this building, Hounslow council have really let local people down, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Vanessa Smith ● 2941d

Different subject Vanessa but I remember Firestone art deco factory being totally demolished on a August bank hol weekend.

Nicholas Beard ● 2941d