Forum Topic

Planning objection

Hello,I'm seeking advice on a planning proposal for a new set of townhouses in Brentford. The site is currently used as a resident/ticketed car park with space for around 40 cars. The council our now proposing the redevelopment of the car park and the subsequent loss of car spaces will be moved into an expanded CPZ area. The loss of this car park will put further pressure on street parking that is usually full by early evening. The provision of street parking further away does not provide an adequate solution for older or vulnerable residents. Is the loss of this community facility enough to form the basis of a legitimate objection? What right does a council have to remove/redevelop established community spaces?

Jeremy Weekes ● 1866d16 Comments

Jeremy,Just to be clear, there are two entirely separate processes here, what is happening now is merely a consultation exercise with locals about the proposals, but this process isn't part of the actual consideration and determination of the planning application.This consultation exercise is really more of a notification process, and to be frank it's almost certain that no matter what people say the Council will still proceed to submit a planning application.  I'm often present at these types of exercises when there's a public exhibition of a scheme, and some people do quite get offish and will say "you're just going to tell me how great the scheme is", and my response is always "nope, we're giving you an opportunity to get a heads up about the scheme, nothing more nothing less".Once this initial consultation process is over, the professional team acting on behalf of the Council will then finalise the full planning application, and might make some tweaks to the scheme in light of the consultation responses.  Once the application is formally submitted, the planning department will then go through the statutory notification process and any representations received must then be taken into account as part of the determination of the planning application.Only if planning permission is granted can the development actually be built.Harsh as it may sound, there is no reason why the amount of local opposition to a proposed development should affect its outcome.  2 of 'my' applications in the last 2 years I've had applications of mine attract over 700 and 325 objections (and in the case of the 1 which attracted 700+ objections I warned the client beforehand that the application wouldn't go down well), and in both cases we got an Officer recommendation for approval.  Because, in simple terms, having regarding to planning policies, there was no reason why either application should have been refused.I'm not saying that is or isn't the case here, but as I always advise objectors (and I do something act on behalf of objectors) it's vital to keep emotion and exaggeration out of any objection, the best objections are those which are reasonable and rational in both their tone and presentation - which was kind of why I criticised Raymond earlier, because whilst he often makes valid and credible points once someone goes OTT then it really doesn't do them any favours.

Adam Beamish ● 1860d

Thanks for the response Adam, I appreciate your expertise in this area. One more question. Is the consultation process just a stage that needs to be ticked off before they just go ahead and build? If it truly is a consultation what sort of response would be required to convince the council not to go ahead with the development?Sometimes it feels like many of these developments are just a fait accompli with little to no consideration for community objections.

Jeremy Weekes ● 1860d

Fair enough, the turn of phrase was a bit harsh.But I do write, I do challenge, and I do my bit as an individual. But you know full well that that get's one nowhere.I don't envy councillors or officers who have a mire of contradictions and policies to enact on.But councils can do a lot more.They can lobby hard on the defects of planning and other issues. They are the elected direct line to officialdom.But rather than be objective it slides in to political party divisions again and again which ever one it happens to be.  Why is it some councils take a tough line on developments and poor designs and applications and others do not?Why not take a stance on the Mayor of London's rather flawed policies and the rather duff performance of TfL. ? They all are part of  funded through local taxation.Why is it that Services like Water, Fire, Ambulance and even Police services are not  able to input objections or advise fully in the way that they can in other Global cities?  Here it seems that career prospects for senior officers are likely to be impeded if they dare speak out against policy or implementations. Concerns fell on deaf ears about Grenfell and infrastructure and access concerns on dozens of other developments large and small as well as road schemes.They are not really independent to not do anything other than tow the line.So god help decision makers but when they get it wrong there is no comeback.

Raymond Havelock ● 1861d

Would be a shame to close this car park. I had to use it a couple of Sundays ago when all the spaces were filled up in Layton Road. The car park was nearly full at the time, so very well used. However, good news is that there are very few Brown Field sites left in Brentford now, so the developers will have to move to pastures new. Boethius' wheel will keep turning. :o)

Steve Allum ● 1862d

"Over-densification and overcrowding is the main root of disease and infection and poverty and this current policy by the Mayor of London and happily pushed through without question by Hounslow Council among several others is blood on their hands."The last bit of your comment is out of order Raymond - decision makers have to make those decisions based upon the development plan, and planning policy, from national level through regional level to local level, encourages high density development.  And that approach has been consistently taken over the years by political parties of different colours.It is, after all, the current SoS for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who has thrown the emerging London Plan back at the Mayor saying that his efforts to provide additional housing within the capital have been a failure and the housing targets within the Plan need to be more higher.  And it is the Conservative party who have, and continue to, brought in more and more relaxations of planning control to enable commercial floorspace to be converted into residential units without having to adhere to the same standards residential units created by a full planning application have to satisfy.So to take your "blood on their hands" comment further, anyone who has voted Conservative in the last 10 years is more responsible than the decision makers who have to work within the confines of planning legislation and policies.Too often on this forum your posts are full of moans and criticisms directed at decision makers, organisations or authorities, yet you never acknowledge the restrictive confines those organisations or decision makers have to operate within.If you're that bothered, then why not stand to be a local Councillor yourself and then find out what it's really like to be a decision maker ?.As for this specific site, I note a planning application is yet to be submitted.However, for an objection on the basis of the loss of community facility to succeed, you'd need to demonstrate that it is a genuine community asset,  for example demonstrating that it is heavily used by local residents and the displacement would therefore have a severely detrimental impact upon the locality.  I'd expect the Council has already (pre-covid) commissioned regular surveys of the car park to establish the level of usage and whether the users are local residents, businesses etc., and that evidence will form the basis of a transport statement/assessment submitted as part of the forthcoming planning application.

Adam Beamish ● 1863d

Overdensification and overcrowding is the main root of disease and infection and poverty and this current policy by the Mayor of London and happily pushed through without question by Hounslow Council among several others is blood on their hands.It's all there but as it does not suit policy and money then it's easier to suggest other issues as a handy sideshow.You cannot have overdevelopment without all the basic infrastructure to go with it.  And it really shows how poor and damaging that is and now how dangerous it is to life.

Raymond Havelock ● 1865d

Several issues here - clearly Hounslow have got it in for anyone who dares to drive a car, with all the restirctions and road closures going on all over the place.Second we too in Isleworth are facing yet more building on what are currently well used garage sites, a letter recently was distributed to some lcoal people who would be affected by the proposals - saying that there was a 'feasibility study' going on. Someone then happened across some documents on the GLA website which showed things were clearly far more advanced than anyone had been led to believe and that also Hounslow have got as far as an 'Invitation to tender' for the work. As yet there is no definitvie planning application. However, again the excuse is that we need homes - these proposals as far as can be ascertained, are for 'affordable' homes in conjunction with a housing association. Yes, we need homes, yes we need social housing not these mythical 'affordable homes', but what I should like to know is given all this how can Hounslow allow family homes to stand empty for months, and sometimes years on end? A home that has stood empty near me since late 2017 was reported to the the Leader of the council several times and the matter was raised at a cabinet 'Question Time' in Februry 2019. A house opposite me has stood empty for eighteen months, and the pathetic lack of speed at turning homes around is a scandal. If this is just one small area what is the situation across the whole borough? I would support - as would many - a real drive to build social housing but not at the cost of existing residents and a loss of their amenities. The council should sort their abysmal housing department out first, before they do anything else.

Vanessa Smith ● 1865d

Thanks everyone for the responses, I have also been having trouble viewing the replies but it seems to be working for me now.The development I am referring to is indeed the one at the end of Orchard Road. I have just been onto the website that was linked in the replies and left my comment. The reason listed by the council for the development is the lack of affordable housing in the area. With the amount of new developments going up or planned (Ballymore, Morrisons, old Police station, watermans) the idea that 6 townhouses could have a meaningful impact seems questionable. To then propose that the development take the place of another community resource seems short-sighted and lazy. The idea of expanding the CPZ will just shift the problem of parking into nearby streets that are already at capacity. 

Jeremy Weekes ● 1865d

I believe that the site in question is the car park at the southern junction of Orchard Road and Windmill Road. I understand that there is as yet no planning application for this site but LB Hounslow have issued a consultation:https://orchardroadcarpark.commonplace.is/The car park site, which belongs to LB Hounslow, is currently available for use without charge by local CPZ permit holders and by others through pay and display. I understand that local permit holders, particularly from York Road, Orchard Road and Windmill Road, make particular use of the car park during the evening and overnight.The consultation states that alternative parking provision will be provided for local permit holders but there does not seem to be any indication of exactly where this provision will be made.The proposal is for 6 family houses for social rent. The houses would be 2 storeys high, a scale that would reflect the scale of other houses in the immediate neighbourhood.

Jim Storrar ● 1866d

Sorry, only posting this as there are supposedly six responses, none of which are showing.if this displays, please ignore it.

N V Brooks ● 1866d

Strange, All your replies seem to have been wiped or theres a glitch...again.

Raymond Havelock ● 1866d

Hi Jeremy,For some reason although the forum suggests there are 4 responses to your opening post, I can't see any of them.Do you have the reference number for the application ? - I'll take a look and revert with my thoughts.However my initial impression is that I don't see how a ticketed car park could fall into the definition of a community facility/space.  The issue would more seem to be whether or not there is a need for the car park facility which in turn would render its loss unacceptable, although again given the direction of local, regional and national planning policy (which seeks to reduce reliance on the private car etc.) I wouldn't regard that as a basis for a strong objection.But if would useful to know the application reference so I can review and comment upon the application submission.Regards,Adam

Adam Beamish ● 1866d

I'm having trouble seeing the replies to this post?

Jeremy Weekes ● 1866d

JeremyWheres the location?

Bernard Allen ● 1866d

Not helpful unless you specify the exact location, there's lots of this going on all over the place.

Raymond Havelock ● 1866d

Are you talking about the proposed development at the end of Orchard Road? Not Albany Parade, surely?

Anne England ● 1866d