Forum Topic

Commerce Road

We've just been told that the developer's appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the Commerce Road site has been dismissed by the Secretary of State.Thanks to everyone who took part in the work that went into the appeal.

Matt Harmer ● 6776d17 Comments

I don't suppose you asked her or that she stated what piece of paper forbids her from signing an EDM?

Kath Richardson ● 6761d

Anne Keen's position seems to prevent her doing lots of things.perhaps she should resign her position and get back to being the local MP.On the subject of money does anyone know what happened to all the cash given (Many millions of Pounds)to the Brentford rejuvenation Project about a decade ago. Are there any accounts available pertaining to this cash and was anything leftover for the Steering group who now seem to be the group overseeing the rejuvenation of the town centre.

Philip Walsh ● 6761d

I just got a reply back from Ann Keen, to my email urging her to support the Early Day Motions.She said that unfortunately her position as Parliamentary Under-secretary of State at the Department of Health, prevents her from signing any EDM, but she said she would forward my comments on to the departments involved.

Duncan Walker ● 6761d

Thank you I will have to have a look as well at that press release.

Dave Hughes ● 6772d

Thank you Dave, I understand that yours is an informative only posting. The issues at stake here were as divorced from party politics as could be imagined – the opinion of the Council and local councillors was unanimous, a situation that remained unchanged during the cross-over of Council control.Unfortunately in this case, each side agreed to bear their own costs, so even though the Council won, they (we) paid. I believe that that decision was taken by the Council, knowing the horrendous costs being racked up by British Waterways. It was understandable, given the uncertainty in the outcome of any litigation.I can’t imagine there’s anything to be done about my moan at the costs – I just felt it worthwhile highlighting the tactics used by wealthy developers who use potential legal costs as a tool of persuasion. You are quite right to say that it has an (inevitable) impact on Planning Committee decisions. It wasn’t so long ago that the Council woke up to the realisation that St George were building a scheme at Brentford Lock that did not have planning permission - something only obvious when nearly complete! Confronted with this, St G simply said ‘Oh dear, we’ll apply for retrospective consent.’ At the local Area Committee meeting, the Borough Solicitor made exactly the point you raised – pragmatically, the chance of winning St G’s Appeal over any refusal of a scheme that was not too dramatically different from the approved scheme, was unlikely. So any decision had to be made, not on the questions over planning merits, but on the costly gamble that would be.I don’t have answers to this, it is simply a terrible situation wherein ‘right’ can be overpowered by financial weight. It is greatly to the Council’s credit that in the last two major fights, it has upheld planning decisions squarely in the face of such financial blackmail. Win or lose, they were brave decisions. Thankfully both were won, and this must be an enormous boost to the Council’s morale and determination to stick to their guns in the future.I’ve been told there’s an excellent ‘press-release’ on the Commerce Road result on the Hounslow website, must go have a look!

Nigel Moore ● 6772d

Hi Nigel, normally if I remeber from long past days of yore, which before others start no this not a political posting just info..I think if the council wins they do not pay the costs however if the decision goes against the Council yes the Council has to pay..this has happened a number of times over the years I think there is a provisonal budget however have to many in one year and you could soon be well a truely out of pocket..the last one I remeber that went against the council cost over 275.000 pounds..In planning committes this does have an impact on how you may decide a decision and its a reason why planners and the legal team in the meeting have to make sure they have a proper reason to move for refusal on any application before a committee as you can see the legal process takes over and a lot of lawyers go home happy with money in pocket.Well anyway I dont know much about what you where fighting against, as it does not ring a bell at the moment but well done.

Dave Hughes ● 6774d

Injecting a slightly sour note into the general euphoria over this result, it needs to be borne in mind how much it has cost us all. I estimate that British Waterways will have spent around £2 million in attempting to foist this appalling scheme on us. That’s just the cost of the Appeal. While the Council will have spent maybe half that in fighting for their decision, that also is coming out of our pockets – and from my personal perspective, it all seems to add up to quite a significant sum.Anyone reading through the reports, whether the Inspector’s or that of the Secretary of State, cannot help but be impressed by the fact that the scheme failed miserably on virtually every aspect considered. It was the quintessence of undisguisable greed, which was allowed to overshadow all family and community amenity, good design, and respect for the area.Instead of listening to community and Council views, BW arrogantly pushed on regardless with their own agenda – and that has cost all of us millions. We can only hope that Brentford Town Centre’s regeneration will be a different story – but what’s the bet that BW’s involvement there will reflect a chastened attitude?

Nigel Moore ● 6774d

I'm going to post this under several topics, as it relates to  many issues. The failure thus far to implement direct policies on inland waterways freight use and the infrastructure for it, needs addressing, as highlighted by the Inspector's Report on the Commerce Road Appeal.The Inland Waterways Association, so active in the Appeal, have in their website, drawn attention to two Early Day Motions in Parliament. This is your chance to stick your oar in:Freight on Canals – House of Commons Early Day Motions Two MPs have launched Early Day Motions in the new session of Parliament urging greater support for the carriage of freight on the inland waterways.  Charlotte Atkins, Labour MP for Staffordshire Moorlands, has tabled an Early Day Motion urging government to create a dedicated freight unit to encourage greater carriage of freight on the inland waterways following the recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee report on British Waterways.  Early Day Motion 169 states: R20;That this House congratulates Tesco's for switching from lorry to water the transport of its new world wine over the 32 miles from Liverpool to its bottling plant in Irlam saving 50 lorry trips a week and cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent.; notes Sainsbury's has recently conducted similar trials in London; believes the Department for Transport should create a dedicated unit to encourage greater use of our inland and coastal waterways as recommended by the recent Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report on British Waterways recommending fiscal incentives to stimulate greater waterways use; and believes much can be learnt from other countries in Europe on using British waterways to reduce noise, pollution and traffic congestion”. Mike Hancock, Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, has launched an Early Day Motion that notes the environmental benefits and calls on both Government and major retailers to support the movement of freight by water.  Early Day Motion 67 states: R20;That this House notes that moving freight by water is several times more environmentally sustainable than doing so by road and takes lorries off the congested road network; further notes that water freight makes a major contribution to the UK's economy and employs more than 200,000 people; welcomes the role played by Sea and Water in promoting water freight; calls on major retailers and others to do more to make their supply chains more green by making use of inland waterways and short sea shipping; and urges the Government to continue to support the water freight industry with policies to develop and maintain the inland waterway network and by ensuring that planning policies in particular encourage rather than hinder access to the waterways.” IWA is encouraging members and other waterways supporters to contact their MP and to lobby them to sign and support both Early Day Motion 67 (51 signatures by 30th November) and 169 (60 signatories by 30th November), as the Association wishes as many MPs as possible to be made aware of some of the wider environmental benefits of the waterways to society as a whole, especially at a time of funding pressures and increased costs to users.  The following link can be used to find the MP for any area and contact them to register support for the motions: www.writetothem.com The following website links show the Early Day motions and which MPs have signed up so far:http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34265&SESSION=891  (EDM 169)http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34157&SESSION=891  (EDM 67)IWA asks that people write to their MP in support of the motions, even if they have already signed them, so that MPs know their constituents support their action and are grateful for their support."You will need to be aware, that Mrs Keen's position, unless that has changed, forbids her from signing such motions. However MP's in her position can be even more effective in relation to these than the norm, should they be so inclined, by writing notes respecting these. Give it a try, regardless (or even because) of any cynicism you may harbour!

Nigel Moore ● 6775d

Hi Neil,if you pm me your e-mail address then I will send you the attachment.RegardsPaul

Paul Fisher ● 6776d

Well...that's really great news.Many thanks to BCC and Nigel Moore.I attended a meeting and wrote a letter,(bit pathetic really now that I think).Let's hope for more sensible and sympathetic proposals for Brentford in general in the future.

Keith Iddon ● 6776d

Is a link available for the full judgement.

Neil Chippendale ● 6776d

Right Neil, the architectural merits of the Art-Deco buildings never rated a mention. In this, I suspect that the Inspector's site viewing had been sufficiently primed by deliberate dereliction to reinforce the argument of irreversible decay. The same principle is being followed with even more rigour, in south of the High street.That said, the south High Street issue was given considerable weight in both the Inspector's and SoS's decision, with the Council's views upheld.Having now read the full report, I am cheered by the more particular considerations given to the waterside issues - not evident in the SoS's letter. We can only trust that the Council planning department take on board the lessons that I have tried to drive home - we need specifics, not generalisations!The decision is of immeasurable significance to any Sth High St proposals: Waterside policies must be addressed, flood issues are paramount, and height, bulk and density must be appropriate to the setting. Historical considerations in terms of appearance and character have been deemed significant even where policy has not sought to preserve practical amenity.With this second major victory in the last year, it is to be hoped the Council have been imbued with that much greater confidence, that supporting the very informed local views is the right path to pursue.No big boy bullying!(I was tempted to indulge in more alliterive allusions involving our august waterways authority, but then reflected that such potentially inflammatory polemics were not, of course, my style.)

Nigel Moore ● 6776d

I would like to congratulate all who campaigned against this over development. Its good that they accepted some of the conservation views. Shame that the 1930's building weren't deemed heritage.It is also a win for the southside.

Neil Chippendale ● 6776d

Having skimmed through the 12-page letter from Ruth Kelly, I am very disappointed that the canal infrastructure arguments have been dismissed as not sufficient of themselves to protect the wharf, simply on the basis that it has the potential to make a future contribution to sustainable transport. What an indictment! The clear lesson though, lies in the reasoning presented - that the Council had NOT specifically listed the wharf in their development plan. This is something I have ‘banged on about’ before, and hopefully with the improved recommendations in the new LDF’s, this avenue of escape for inappropriate developments will be closed. However the LDF’s don’t address Commerce Road in this particular, because of the process of the Appeal (if I’ve understood the reasoning aright). It certainly shows the urgent necessity to ensure specific sites are protected, because otherwise general policy is deemed insufficient.However – in conservation terms, she agrees with the Inspector that ‘the overhanging warehouses have a significant effect on the character of the adjacent stretch of the Grand Union Canal and that to lose these structures in the absence of any acceptable replacement would be both unnecessary and undesirable’.In terms of flood defences, she considered that the original scheme would have been most unlikely to succeed, given the Environment Agency’s disapproval, and the subsequent amendments referred to a scheme so different that it would require a separate application. Thank goodness that this issue is carrying some weight!And, crucially, she agrees that the scheme as a whole was, as BRN’s militate against, inappropriate to the location – she agrees with the Inspector ‘that the size, height and density of the proposed scheme would have an overwhelming impact which would fail to form an appropriate response to the sensitivity of the location and would be contrary to related development plan policies’. Pity she didn’t specify those, but this was an overview.As such, it is a thorough vindication of all we’ve tried to assert with respect to waterside issues, and those were the least of the objections! (They shouldn’t have been, but still . . .)And Jim - the overshadowing of the Island site wasn't considered to be a sufficient factor for refusal!But the end result is all.

Nigel Moore ● 6776d

Parts of it may have looked pretty in the picture, but it was clearly an overdevelopement..it would have overshadowed the Island opposite.So: yippee!

Jim Lawes ● 6776d

Pipped me at the post Matt!I've yet to read the Report, it hasn't been emailed to me, so I'm off to the Post Office. I'm obviously concerned to see how far the waterside issues played a part.

Nigel Moore ● 6776d

Great news Matt. Long live the Brentford waterways.

Duncan Walker ● 6776d