Open letter in response to the statement issued by Cllr. Lily Bath, Cabinet member for Housing We are responding with reference to works on Worple and Worton Estates Isleworth. Cllr. Bath mentions Hounslow’s Climate Emergency Action Plan as a factor in the cladding of the properties in Isleworth, the planning permission for this work was dated 2017, some three years before this plan was announced. So why is this one of the reasons cited? The concerns about the condition of the properties had been ongoing for some years, so it is understandable most people were in favour of the work to improve the thermal efficiency of their homes. They were informed that the colour scheme was to be ‘magnolia or similar’ across both estates, which the design and access statement and the planning application submitted at the time clearly states. This was a factor in many residents being satisfied with the proposals. We would be grateful for Cllr. Bath’s definition of ‘independent local planning authority’, as far as we know the planning department and the housing department are both part of Hounslow Council. We would like Cllr. Bath to explain why planning permission was sought in the first place when all advice is, that this is not required for external cladding works, unless, the area is an area of outstanding natural beauty, a conservation area or there are listed buildings. None of which apply to the Worple and Worton Estates. Neither is there any clarification as to why the planning department suddenly and without notification ‘required’ the colour of the finish on some properties to be ‘sand yellow’. (RAL 1002), which could not fail to make them stand out. Why did the planning department accept the planning application in the first instance and not advise the housing department that this was unnecessary, and that an application for a Certificate of Lawful Development was acceptable for this work, this would also have confirmed that such works are ‘permitted development’? We would also like to ask why the planning department did not seek an Article 4 direction to restrict the scope of permitted development rights, choosing instead to make this a condition of the planning permission, and what the purpose of this was? The assertion that ‘the vast majority of tenants are satisfied with the quality of the works’, is certainly counter to the feedback we have received, and we would like to know what evidence Cllr. Bath has to support this. We question whether Hounslow failed in their due diligence as we are aware that the contractor appointed to do this work has had at least one contract terminated by another London authority. We are also concerned that a local authority housing department would agree to such a restrictive ‘guarantee’ which limits the enjoyment of the properties by the tenants, and leaves the authority in a vulnerable position as the conditions are so strict as to be almost impossible to adhere to over such an extended period. https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2014/01/07/westminster-council-bust-up-with-mulalley-over-estate-refurb/ We particularly take exception to Cllr. Bath’s comments regarding impact on house prices in these areas. She is the only person to have mentioned this, not one resident has ever mentioned it and it has certainly never been an issue. We all live here irrespective of our tenure, we all share the visual amenities, we are friends and neighbours. We have further questions that we would like to put to Cllr. Bath regarding other issues, and look forward to being able to do so in an open and public forum. Not least the undue pressure that some tenants feel they have been put under for speaking out regarding the workmanship on their homes, which is a matter of regret. Finally, we would hope that Hounslow council could bring some perspective to bear over the issue of the house that was painted by the Worple estate tenant. In the spirit of the caring and understanding and ‘listening’ council you purport to be, would It not serve your reputation well to try and come to an amicable agreement, over what was an innocent mistake, and not pursue a widowed lady for an excessive amount of money for cosmetic alterations to your property?
Vanessa Smith ● 1309d