Forum Topic

From Facebook:Tony Louki (to)  Ed Mayne How old were you in 1992 when Tesco was first proposed then opened in 1996? As ward councillor there at the time, yes, people were cheesed off but genuinely engaged with the process as now and many planning gain concessions gained.In contrast to the one at Mogden where local councillors encouraged rejection, the council lost the appeal and all that Tesco contributed was about £48,000 for that roundabout.Nobody in this part of Isleworth is saying niet we're just after humane and fair development.Check the nuance of the publicity, it's not 650 new jobs; 350 max if we're lucky and it's not clear how many will disappear with a reduced size supermarket.The submitted Draft Local Plan for the Great West Corridor, developed following much local consultation and what was considered serious participation by councillors from the four constituent Wards is still to be considered by the Planning Inspector.The submission defined the two sites in question and the process finally agreed. The current Tesco site is allocated 350 housing units if the current store is kept or 900 without. The Homebase site has an allocation of 300 housing units. The developer proposal as it stands is 2,150 (1,710 and 440).A development based on the consulted upon Draft Local Plan would yield 480 units of affordable housing at 40%.And it's not just about the buildings. Those who use it know what a state Gillette Corner is for all users but nothing shown by the developer so far suggests any improvement should a Tesco be built.My quip on Cannes was because the lead member for planning said that Berkeley Homes Uncle Tony Pidgeley wanted to meet me which duly happened on 14.5.2019 in the presence of the Head of Planning. From what I worked out then (just like the Conquest Club and Brent Lea Rec before) the proposals were well advanced.Despite being told otherwise, I later learned after that there were drawings and, via a FOI, that between October 2018 and December 2019, Berkeley had 21 other recorded meetings with the lead member, director and other officers from LBH and GLA. The usual pre planning advice stuff, no details available to the public because the developer pays for the privilege of sole access and discretion.There are other matters we are still not clear about. Since these schemes were first mooted, likely long before the above date, Hounslow has adopted a new climate change and other environmental policies. The ambitions such as additional transport infrastructure are unlikely to be implemented by financially crippled Transport for London and Crossrail.The proposals depend on concrete and the now abnormal but because they are on the shelf and were ready to go before Covid, they are being sold as a solution for recoveryWith regard to the Tesco at Mogden - it had nothing to do with local people not being engaged with the process, it did though have a lot to do with fellow members on the planning cttee. at the time being willing to rollover for Tesco, which ward councillors were not, hence it got pushed to appeal, which subsequently we lost, however we were doing what you are doing now - representing local people, not as has gone on now, doing deals in dark corners.

Vanessa Smith ● 1837d

I agree with the sentiment, and the article at the link below is quite disturbing :https://www.pbctoday.co.uk/news/planning-construction-news/corrupt-planning-decisions/80113/None of it is reflected in my experience however.  I only know of 1 occasion when a colleague was offered a bribe by a consultant, which was swiftly rebuffed and recorded.A minority of clients have used PR/lobbying firms, which often include serving Councillors from other Boroughs, although I've never seen it generate results - indeed, I recall on one occasion the representative from the lobbying firm told my client that, following lobbying, Councillors of a particular political colour would vote in favour of our application, and lo and behold the application was unanimously refused !.As I've said before, one of my biggest gripe is with Officers at LPA's not taking corruption/allegations of dodgy behaviour seriously, and I'm talking about when Councillors or the public make spurious claims in writing or at committee and the Officers basically ignore it.  In the last year I've been at one committee where both a member of the public and a Councillor implied that the Officer had been 'got at' by myself or my client, which was completely untrue, yet the Officers simply didn't respond - which I find disgusting because if people are going to band around such potentially career-ending accusations without a shred of evidence, and not be challenged (put up or shut up) then that only tacitly suggests there's some truth in the allegation.Similarly on any case the LPA, whilst redacting third party representations prior to uploading them to the website, didn't stop to think whether a representation making a similar accusation was libellous, and it was only when it entered the public domain and I threatened legal action was that representation removed.  On the same case, a member of the public contacted me, Senior Officers and the local MP stating that he'd been told that the application was a "done deal", a claim that the MP seemed only too happy to include in her objection to the application.  Out of all the other recipients who was the only person to respond ? - me.  I asked the Officers if they were going to respond and was told "nah, we won't waste our time on that".  That attitude infuriates me - so much for treating such allegations seriously or defending Officers when there's not a shred of evidence to substantiate a libellous accusation.But I've got first hand experience of that, at Hounslow I was accused of saying that "we have alot of problems with Asians in the Borough", fortunately the accuser was someone I knew would try something like that (I'd only got involved because they'd been unhappy with the work of my staff) and I'd made sure every phone conversation I had at the time was witnessed, so it was relatively easy to rebut the allegation as colleagues were able to confirm that I'd actually said "we have alot of problems with outbuildings in the Borough".But, in this world of customer care and all that, the individual making the allegation got a letter which started with "we are very sorry that you have felt the need to complain"...suffice to say that wasn't the wording I'd have used !.As for Cllr. Louki, what I would say is that sometimes Councillors play to the public gallery too much and lose sight of their specific responsibilities, especially when sat on a planning committee - I've been on the receiving end of what could best be described as a 'rant' from Cllr. Louki which was solely about whether the applicant used zero hours employment contracts.  Which is bugger all to do with planning, and he ended up being effectively 'shut down' and looking abit daft.  Which he certainly isn't, but there really was no need for him to go off on a complete tangent.

Adam Beamish ● 1838d