Forum Topic

Lunatic alert

A planning application is at present being considered by Hounslow Council for an illuminated advertising hoarding on the green area at the junction of Twickenham Rd. and Crane Avenue Isleworth, opposite the Cole Park Allotments. The proposed hoarding is to be composed of 48 panels and will be 6.4m X 3.5 in size. That is 21ft by 11ft. and will be elevated on a single leg.The application is from JC Decaux and is quite possibly going to be a nice little earner, the fact that it will also be an eyesore  probably isn't up for consideration. Let's hope local people object, I have notified two of our local councillors.Surely we've got enough to put up with around here with the bloody traffic? Do we really need this too? http://planning2.hounslow.gov.uk/NPSPublicDocs/00606055.pdf

Vanessa Smith ● 2740d27 Comments

Thank you for your efforts, Vanessa. A sensible result.

Scott Doyle ● 2727d

Well done everyone!!!!

Nicholas Beard ● 2727d

Pleased to be able to report that the planned 21ft X 11ft 48 panel illuminated advertising hoarding that J C Decaux wanted to erect on the green space at the junction of Twickenham Rd./Crane Avenue has been rejected by planners.Local residents, allotment holders and The Isleworth Society sent objections to the planning department and Cllr. Salman Shaheen who supported the objectors, very grateful for his support, and let's hope we've seen the last of such an application.

Vanessa Smith ● 2727d

Cut the nuclear deterant! Just a waste of money.

Nicholas Beard ● 2737d

Cut the nuclear deterant! Just a waste of money.

Nicholas Beard ● 2737d

Anne, I presume you are one of the lucky ones then who never moans about a lack or cut in local services apart from councillors allowances of course

Paul Fisher ● 2737d

We already spend the NATO minimum, on Defence, so spending less is a tough call. Granted we don't NEED much of it right now, but when we do need it, we will not be able to build stuff at the drop of a hat. I would agree that Defence procurement is a total shambles though.

Christopher Gillie ● 2737d

As a single occupant (and not necessarily out of choice - which is in any case irrelevant) I find paying three quarters of the full amount of Council Tax on my own year after year quite enough.

Anne England ● 2737d

The Council could quite simply increase the Council tax like they use to year after yearI appreciate there is now a cap on how much they can each year but I think they should have used the 2% available to them rather then trying to win votes by keeping it low

Paul Fisher ● 2737d

I would cut the defence budget. Look at what we spend on defence compared to other EU members. Germany contribite less than us to NATO but spend more on education and health. Spend the EU average.

Nicholas Beard ● 2737d

Whenever I hear something like "The government could increase the council budget", I try to ask the person where this money is going to come from. Would you increase taxes, increase borrowing or reduce spending elsewhere to make it available?Personally, I would support increasing taxes by 1p in income tax for everyone.

Christopher Gillie ● 2737d

The council need the money. People accept the commercialisation of the parks. Of course we dont need this the government could increase the council budget but dont want to.

Nicholas Beard ● 2737d

We are hopeful that this application will be refused under 'delegated powers'  - fingers crossed. Local councillor Salman Shaheen has added his support to residents objections.

Vanessa Smith ● 2738d

Yes, as far as we know the area is a WW2 air raid shelter.We also now know that Hounslow - lovely people that they are - have already agreed that the area can be used BEFORE the application was made. A case of cart before horse - and what a weasely thing to do, do various departments ever speak to each other, do they indeed bother with local councillors? High-handed couldn't care- less as per usual from our Lords & Masters. Disgraceful behaviour. Developers and applicants before residents - how refreshing.................

Vanessa Smith ● 2738d

I have to admit I have no qualms whatsoever about supporting planning applications which I know aren't going to be supported by some/many local residents.  It comes with the territory, as long as I feel that I've got strong planning arguments to support the application then I'll submit it, and regardless of whether the application receives 10, 50 or 500 objections won't affect my involvement in the application.  That's my 'business' decision, I don't take on projects I don't believe have got a hope in hell, as I'm not in the business of taking money off clients for the sake of it, but if I turned down business because I was 'worried' about upsetting the locals then quite frankly I wouldn't be cut out for the private sector in the first place.If, as they occasionally do, clients decide to back out of projects due to the level of public feeling then that's a decision for them for make.  Earlier this year I had an application which received over 700 objections, but in planning terms the scheme was entirely acceptable - I told the client before we submitted that I was confident we'd get Officer support, but that there was bound to be considerable resistance from the locals.  Which was exactly how it played out, we went to committee with a resolution for approval despite the 700+ objections, but of course Councillors played to the public gallery and refused it in what was little more than a show trial.  Now with my professional hat on I was all for appealing that refusal as I've little doubt an appeal would have been allowed, but the client didn't have the appetite for the fight, fair enough, their decision.But if another client came to me tomorrow and said "we want to go again on that site again" I wouldn't hesitate to upset those 700 people again - I'm a planning consultant, it's nothing personal, but if I know a scheme has strong planning grounds then I'll support it, and residents will object to it, that's how it is.

Adam Beamish ● 2738d

I always thought this land was a mound covering a WW11 bunker.

Sarah Felstead ● 2739d

"But what I don't get is how their willingness to take that risk equates to them being "lunatics" or "wrong"...they're simply doing what advertisement companies do.  If they didn't, they wouldn't be successful as a business."Agreed - this is purely a business decision, however, it does call into question the morality of the decisions that business takes. Maybe that is a somewhat old-fashioned idea, but large successful entities thinking they have the right to ride roughshod over local residents in the pursuit of profit is going to provoke a reaction. Some attempt at trying to consult people prior to dumping this on us might have been sensible, either from Hounslow or Decaux, who knows it could well have saved time and money. But obviously the 'little people' count for nothing in this quest for even more money.I do think this application shows a complete lack of judgement regarding the site which is the main entrance and exit to a residential estate and only a lunatic - (definition -  a disordered state of mind) would seriously think otherwise.

Vanessa Smith ● 2739d

I often get asked that question Vanessa, i.e. "would I want [insert description of development] next to me ?".  And my answer is always the same, "what's the relevance of the question ?".The planning system isn't based on what the majority want, it isn't a popularity contest.  Just because 100 people object to an application doesn't make it unacceptable in planning terms, nor if 100 people support an application is it necessarily acceptable.There's many schemes I put forward I wouldn't like to live next to.  There's many elements of the planning system I don't agree it, but it is what it is.  My moral compass (which is pretty strong is terms of fundamental right and wrong) doesn't extend so far that I've going to decline to work on schemes I wouldn't like to live next door to and quite frankly the same logic applies to 99.9% of the population in whatever line of work they're in.  And if they say otherwise they're fibbing.The ironic thing here is that I completely agree with you and Keith in respect of the merits of this application, and I've made that absolutely clear.  I've never suggested Decaux are "right" or that they know better, what I keep saying is that they know what they've doing and I suspect they're taking a punt on this with a view to it being refused by the Council and an Inspector possibly (again I think it's unlikely) allowing an appeal.But what I don't get is how their willingness to take that risk equates to them being "lunatics" or "wrong"...they're simply doing what advertisement companies do.  If they didn't, they wouldn't be successful as a business.It's no different to what I do, every day of the week I'll give advice to clients about the chances of obtaining planning permission, both from Councils and on appeal, sometimes client heed my advice and walk away, other times they decide to take a punt.  I like to think I have a pretty good idea of when an application is going to be refused by a Council and hence when the client is going to have to factor in the costs/times associated with an appeal.  I wouldn't have the business that I do if I wasn't willing to upset people along the way, it comes with the territory.Like or loathe developers and/or the people that represent them, but respect us too - as I always say to objectors keep your representations level-headed and rational too (i.e. labelling applicants as 'lunatics' isn't a good start !).

Adam Beamish ● 2739d

No you have got it - that is the case. I understand the quirks of the planning system, but I would have thought that one of the officers at Hounslow who you would suppose have talked to Decaux's bods might just have said - it's up to you if you want to stick in an application but it is a residential area and local people are likely to take a dim view of it and if you're asking, members might also take that view and be unlikely to be able to support it - but it's your money and your choice - go ahead.I get that if Decaux want to put in an application for this then they are perfectly within their rights to do so, that doesn't make them right, and for the people living a few yards away from this huge thing - well would you want it as your view when you pull the curtains in the morning?  What is wrong with the commercial shopping area opposite where there are large signs aplenty? Probably the landlords there want too much dosh.....................

Vanessa Smith ● 2739d

I think Vanessa was trying to get at the fact that you will hardly ever have to look at this proposed eyesore so your opinion is based purely on technical and legal stuff,not on the fact that it will affect you day to day so you are arguing from a different perspective to her, and me also btw. Some people will see this as a blight and some as a legitimate planning application. Just like the  Church St. closure. Apologies if I am wrong, Vanessa.

Keith Iddon ● 2739d

But it's not a case of being "right" or "wrong", it's a case of subjective judgement, personally I'd agree that the siting of an advert hoarding in this location is inappropriate.However, as I say whilst I'd expect the LPA to agree with that, as you know independent Planning Inspectors who determine appeals aren't local so aren't going to be influenced by local feeling.I'm currently dealing with planning matters covering locations ranging from the South Coast, Great Yarmouth and Newcastle, and just because I don't live in Newcastle that doesn't make me planning arguments any less valid (in the eyes of planning law/considerations) than the ones I present for applications on the doorstep.

Adam Beamish ● 2739d

Oh  Adam! - if you lived here you'd understand - this application is beyond stupid and only a lunatic would think otherwise, or chance their arm. I actually do remember Martin who went to work for Decaux - but to be honest I don't care how big they are, in this case they are so, so wrong. Even clever clogs like them don't always get it right. It's yet another case of a big corporate entity knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing - in this case our neighbourhood. Opposite the site of this monstrosity is a smallish shopping  parade with several shops that are branches of quite big companies - why not see if they can erect their blasted hoarding there if they are that desperate?

Vanessa Smith ● 2740d

Sorry Vanessa but the headline really doesn't fit the story.Who's the applicant ? - JC Decaux, one of the biggest advertisement companies in the world...whether you like them or loathe them, they're hardly some crackpot organisation or individual who don't know what they're doing.Indeed, and I don't know if he's still working for them but I thought his was, the Head of Enforcement I succeeded at LBH has been Decaux's Planning Manager for years.Not that I'm saying I support the proposal (indeed like Martin I was once offered a job to work for one of their rivals but quite frankly doing this kind of work everyday would bore me to death) but whilst I'd expect LBH to refuse it an Inspector on appeal may take a different view, and I suspect Decaux are thinking that it's worth a punt.

Adam Beamish ● 2740d

Now that Twickenham Road is one big traffic jam for most of the day, they probably think this would be an ideal site for them.Let’s hope our 2 new local councillors will get onboard with the residents to stop this madness.

Robin Dickers ● 2740d

Yes, I am planning on alerting people to object to this eyesore, it is, as one of my neighbours said, something that a 'lobotomised half-wit' would come up with.

Vanessa Smith ● 2740d

Just checked the site on Google - what an eyesore to plop into the middle of a residential area - surely it will not be given planning permission.  I'd be hopping mad if I lived there - ugly, glaring, in yer face, hideous edifice!

Jennifer Selig ● 2740d

Bump.

Vanessa Smith ● 2740d