Forum Topic

Hounslow secures £150,000 fine

Wed, 05 December 2007Hounslow Council has secured what is thought to be London’s biggest-ever planning fine.The £150,000 fine was handed out to a landlord who turned a Hounslow bungalow into 10 self-contained bedsits.Vikas Subharwal converted the property in 106 Wellington Road North, Hounslow, into rental units, despite being refused planning permission for the development.The council served him with a planning enforcement notice in July 2005 requiring him to restore the property to a single family dwelling.He refused to comply with the council’s demands and was taken to Isleworth Crown Court where he was found guilty of failing to company with the terms of the enforcement notice and fined £150,000.Councillor Barbara Reid, the council’s lead member for planning and environment, said: “This case demonstrates that Hounslow is becoming one of country’s leading authorities for planning enforcement.“We give people every opportunity to comply with the law but if they refuse then we will not hesitate in taking them to court.“This record fine demonstrates that the courts take a very dim view of landlords who flout the planning laws. “These regulations are there to protect us all from unnecessary and unsafe developments.“Taking tough action against people who don’t want to play by the same rules as everyone else is just one way we can make the borough of Hounslow a better place to live.”In mitigation, Mr Subharwal gave contradictory evidence about the ownership of the property and the number of bedsits.The father of two told the court that the property was half-owned by his brother and stated on his Legal Aid application that he only owned a third-share in the house. However, a Land Registry search revealed that Mr Subharwal is the sole owner of the property.He also revealed that the property was generating an income of around £4,000 per month.In sentencing the defendant, Her Honourable Judge Dangor said that Mr Subharwal had been less than truthful with the court, had caused much delay to the prosecuton and had shown a flagrant disregard for the enforcement notice.Mr Subharwal, who lives with his brotherin Wraysbury, Surrey, could now face up to three years in prison if he fails to pay the fine and comply with the terms of the enforcement notice.This requires him to stop the use of the property as bedsits; remove the kitchen and bathroom from each of the bedsits and restore the property to single family dwelling.

Paul Fisher ● 6912d22 Comments

I really do think that this the one thing this Council has got right. It was always a source of great frustration with me that there was a reluctance to enforce on a lot of these structures, it never seemed to occur to people that these so-called Landlords wre taking the p*** out of the system whilst making money from other people's housing need in sub standard conditions.There has also been enforcement action on the illegal extension down the road here - the one just at the back of your garden, a large fine and the whole extension must come down too, you must remember it - it was the one you could never see when I mentioned it.............funny that.

Vanessa Smith ● 6912d

I do recall it Vanessa even though it was a few years ago and if I remember correctly I could not see what your problem was with it, but that was of course before I was elected and began to learn about planning laws.I bow to your experience and for being proved right.

Paul Fisher ● 6912d

I think I must add also that its not quite at the back of my garden and I would have to crank my neck out of the window to see it but point taken.

Paul Fisher ● 6912d

Thank-you - sometimes it doesn't pay to let your politics colour your judgement.

Vanessa Smith ● 6912d

I'm interested to know how Vikas Subharwal managed to get Legal Aid & how much has that cost?

Lynn Clark ● 6912d

In the light of much that has been said elsewhere about council members' reluctance to take enforcement action it should be noted that the original enforcement decision in this case was taken by the Central Hounslow Area Committee a number of years ago. Following the complaint by the next door neighbour of this property our planning and enforcement staff at the time were reluctant to act, and it was member pressure that ensured the right action was taken.

John Connelly ● 6911d

John, with respect your post suggests that for some reason the Council's Planning & Enforcement staff were previously reluctant to add.  As I recall, the Council determined a total of three planning applications on the property (which of course legally it had to do ) and as you say back in 2005 served an enforcement notice in respect of the breach.  The owner exercised his statutory right to appeal against that notice which he lost.  My personal view is that the planning and enforcement staff of the Council, both those who secured the successful prosecution & those who did all the work on the investigation, ensuring the notice was legally correct on all grounds & serving it, & then defending the notice (& I don't just mean myself) should be praised for such a successful outcome, & on a personal level I'm rather disappointed that your post suggests otherwise.

Adam Beamish ● 6911d

Adam, your report to the Hounslow Area Committee on 106 Wellington Road North was determined on 22nd April 2004. Your report advises that notice was received of a breach of planning in July 2003. I don't dispute that this may have been the date the matter was referred to you. However, the application for 10 flats refused in July 2003 was submitted as a result of earlier complaints. If you look at the minutes of 22nd April you will see it also records my row with the Deputy Borough Solicitor who was arguing that, even if the windows installed in 106 had been done so illegally, this was sufficient ground for refusing the application of the resident at 102 to extend his property in the way he wished.My recollections on this case are vivid because of the impact of the windows installed on the side of number 106 upon the resident of 102's attempts to extend his family home for entirely legitimate purposes. I cannot recall exactly when I became involved, but it was well before July 2003. My experience was that the planning officers gave more attention to restricting the owner of 102 from extending his property than acting against 106, even though adverts from the Informer announcing the availability of these flats were provided to the office.If the delays were on the part of the planners rather than enforcers then I extend my apology to you. Needless to say, I would still expect you to defend your former colleagues' actions.The main purpose of my posting was to highlight the point that the recent events were due to actions initiated by local members, not officers. Also, that the Area Committee had no hesitation in ordering enforcement action following the officer report.

John Connelly ● 6911d

"Councillor Barbara Reid, the council’s lead member for planning and environment, said: “This case demonstrates that Hounslow is becoming one of country’s leading authorities for planning enforcement". Nicola Spinks, a planning consultant, highlighted these concerns she had on at least two committee's years ago, she found that committee members were overturning planning officers enforcement recomendations with monotonous regularity.The Members were allegedly  found to be flouting planning laws themselves! A government inspector, on one occasion stated that he could not understand why an appeal on enforcement action was made to him when "it clearly breaches the Highways Act" and promptly dismissed the appeal, but surprise surprise the extension went ahead anyway. I would ask "have councillors completed the training recommended by her, to enable them to understand planning laws and regulations?.Thank goodness the present membership of these committees are beyond reproach, and reaching decisions based on their merits, and not by the previous "nod and a wink that took place pre meeting" by the other lot. 

w John Michael Atkinson ● 6911d

Andrew, I think you've missed the point on this occasion. The £150,000 fine has been imposed on a resident who breached planning controls by creating 10 bedsits in a family home. It was the much-maligned Central Hounslow Area Committee that took the decision to enforce in 2004 when "the other lot" dominated the committee. Most of the other cases of large fines being imposed reported upon recently - including one in Hounslow West and another on the Bath Road - were cases where enforcement decisions were taken by the same committee between 2002 and 2006.

John Connelly ● 6910d

JohnPoint taken. I must admit that the points I made were in part "off thread" but what I was trying to do was to empasise the fact that members of this committee, who had transgressed the planning laws themselves, were allowed to keep the illegal structures, no fines for them?Perhaps you can clarify why an illegal structure, which as I have already said was in breach of the Highways Act, and even after the planning inspector rejected the appeal for the retention of it, it was allowed to stay.......why, and how? Perhaps Adam may know? Do planning laws overide the highways legislation, thus far nobody has explained!

Account suspended ● 6910d

So, one wonders, how many enforcement notices were served by the London Borough of Hounslow 2001 - May 2006 under the old Administration...and how many since then.I understand that there are still many planning rejections that are being challenged by local scallwags, incurring the Council with extra expense.  That grotesque shop front next to the Thornbury Road railway bridge in Osterley comes to mind. The landlord will get an earful if I happen to see him! How dare he, (incomer?) rape the architecture of our local heritage.

Jim Lawes ● 6910d

John? Adam? Vanessa? Anybody know the answer? surely someone knows! It's important to know. to prevent a recurrence."Perhaps you can clarify why an illegal structure, which as I have already said was in breach of the Highways Act, and even after the planning inspector rejected the appeal for the retention of it, it was allowed to stay.......why, and how? Perhaps Adam may know? Do planning laws override the highways legislation, thus far nobody has explained!"

Account suspended ● 6908d

Andrew, I have tried to e-mail you privately to ask which case you are referring to. Unfortunately, the website won't let me. My web address is Sheila8832@aol.com if you wish to pass me on the details.

John Connelly ● 6908d

The Highways Act & the planning legislation are completely separate areas of legislation as I know you're aware, & one doesn't over-ride the other.  In considering the expediency of taking enforcement action, the national legislation makes it very clear that what has to be considered are the provisions of the relevant development plan, & all other material planning considerations.  Therefore a structure could breach the Highways Act purely because it's there but it may be that the structure doesn't result in conditions prejudicial to vehicular or pedestrian safety, & therefore there would be no highways-related planning grounds to take action against it.  Hope that makes sense.Jim has asked in an earlier post on this thread about numbers of notices served & that question reflects why I posted on this thread originally (as most of you are aware I tend to stay away from the site usually) - my point is that recently Hounslow has achieved a large number of successful prosecutions which has secured large fines (under the current Administration), for which, in my opinion, the current Enforcement Team deserves great praise, but equally all of those prosecutions relate to formal actions taken by previous members of the Team (& authorised by the various Area Committees under the old Administration), & any defects in those actions would result in unsuccessful prosecutions, so that shouldn't be forgotten.

Adam Beamish ● 6908d

Off the thread a bit but how come a John Connelly becomes a Sheila in his email address strange case me thinks.

Mick OBrien ● 6908d

Quite simple really. At various times (most recently, August to October) I have not had access to the Council e-mail due to not having a functioning wired-up office at the Civic Centre. My wife's e-mail address, once the back up, is now my main access to the internet and point of contact for constituents.

John Connelly ● 6907d

JohnI have e-mailed the details to you via the address you have given. Await your reply.

Account suspended ● 6906d

My thanks to Andrew for clarifying the planning issue he referred to above. The property is familiar to me as the Asian Food Centre on the Staines Road facing the Benson Close flats.In the late 1990's 3 reports were brought to the Sustainable Development Committee seeking enforcement action against 3 shops on the Staines Road for having unauthorised canopies. One was the Asian Food Centre, the others being on the south side of Staines Road close to Wellington Road South and on the corner of Munster Avenue.The 3 shop owners appealed against enforcement. 2 were rejected outright and were obliged to remove their canopies. The Asian Food Centre was able to demonstrate that the framework of their canopy had been in place for more than 4 years and was immune from enforcement. The panels on the sides and front had been renewed within the 4 year period and were therefore liable to enforcement.Andrew has raised issues about highway obstruction, and I will respond directly. I believe the pavement at the Asia Food Centre is sufficiently wide to allow a free flow of residents. The crucial issue is whether produce is displayed outside the canopy, as it was before enforcement action, or inside. If inside, then there is no basis for enforcement as the structure is immune. My understanding is that the proprietor no longer displays produce outside the canopy.As to the "judgement of Solomon" that emerged from the enforcement ruling, it was pointed out at the time that if the proprietor had not renewed his shuttering the whole structure would have been immune. Following this less than satisfactory outcome local councillors discussed the situation with planning officers in order to obtain a structure that would be less unsightly than the one immune from enforcement that also ensured security for the premises.I was directly involved in these discussions and suggest that what I was trying to do was make the best of an imperfect outcome. For comparison purposes, our planning officers recently allowed a landlord, who had converted a house in St Stephen's Road into a number of bedsitters, to convert the property into 3 flats rather than return it to a family unit. They argued that uncertainties about the dates of some of the transgressions meant that this imperfect option should be supported.

John Connelly ● 6905d

JohnThanks for your reply, I still believe that this building is a "blot on the landscape" and to prevent similar incidents the 4 year rule needs to be scrapped forthwith. Do the owners pay higher business rates for the additional space he has adopted?

Account suspended ● 6905d

I read this evening whilst waiting for my excellent shish kebab at Isleworth Kebabs,that the poor lamb reckons he can't pay.He does own a house valued at 300k in 2002 though.Is this a no- brainer or what?

Keith Iddon ● 6905d

Did you see the one in the paper today where the bloke had a bungalow in his back garden with a family of three living in it and claimed he didn't know? How on earth anyone would have the front to even say that and insult someone's intelligence astounds me - fortunately the Magistrates thought it was a load of old sphericals too.

Vanessa Smith ● 6904d