Forum Topics

Standards Board confirms - New Labour's allegations are unsubstantiated

I have commented several times on this forum about the unsubstantiated nature of a host of allegations directed against myself, the Community Group and the administration at the London Borough of Hounslow by the local New Labour Party, usually through the offices of its former Bedfont councillor and Executive member David Hughes.Anybody who has followed the progress of these unsubstantiated allegations, or has been unsuccessful when requesting evidence with which to support them, might be interested to read the following remarks, received by me this morning from the Standards Board for England:"The Standards Board for England recently received a complaint from Mr. David Hughes concerning the alleged conduct of Councillor Phil Andrews of the London Borough of Hounslow.  Officers conducted an assessment and decided not to refer the complaint for investigation.  The following summarises the general nature of the allegation:"The complainant alleged that on a number of occasions Councillor Andrews has threatened staff who he thinks are Labour Party members.  It is reported that following the announcement of job cuts, Councillor Andrews used his position as an executive member on www.brentfordtw8.com to target officers who may be left wing (PA's note: Mr. Hughes evidently confuses membership of the New Labour Party with being "left wing", a connection which I have never made).  It is further alleged that 'any employment with Hounslow Council is being vetted for political alliance (sic)' by another member.  The complainant contends that there is more evidence of this activity on Councillor Andrews' website when he allegedly bullied the housing director and his assistant who have since left the council."The complainant has provided a copy of two forum messages in support of his complaint."It is noted the the complainant and Councillor Andrews have different political views given their frank exchange of words over the internet (PA's note: I personally would content that differences between David's views and my own are largely organisational rather than political).  However, there is no information to support the view that Councillor Andrews has reportedly threatened council staff in the way that the complainant alleges.  Generally speaking the Standards Board for England does not refer allegations for investigation unless there is more information on which to base a referral than supposition on the part of the complainant."The Standards Board for England has decided that the allegation should not be referred to an ethical standards officer for investigation.  Having taken account of the available information we do not believe that a potential breach of the Code of Conduct is disclosed."

Phil Andrews ● 6903d10 Comments ● 6902d

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 ● 6904d

Alpha Laval latest plans still dodgy

After two previous rejections the third lot of plans from Carlton Properties has been lodged in Brentford library and the Treaty Centre. What time of year would you choose to submit plans to minimise objections? That's right folks you've got till Christmas Day. To be fair the Planning Department (planningcomments@hounslow.gov.uk)will probably accept objections till New Year.  The wall of offices, serviced apartments and hotel rooms designed to look down on the residents north of the M4/A4 is much the same, just slightly lower (except for one point). The building is described as 12 storey although I counted 14 layers above ground on the plans.   Most of the 11 "Key Amendments" look pretty minor apart from better on-site renewable energy measures.   One Saturday afternoon skimming the plans so far is not enough for me to grasp all the detail but one line that frightens me is that the plans "respect and complement the scale of the consented scheme at Wallis House." (Remember how high that is going?)    Also they state that the Planning Department agrees that high buildings along the Great West Road are appropriate - not if you ask the residents where you are trying to extend them to overlook their homes and block out the sky to the south. Also I don't get how that fits with their acceptance of the argument against "massing". I would be more impressed if the appropriate Council department could deal with the illegal (I was told at the BCC)in-your-face advertising on the old tower which we seem to get till just before plans come up for council review. Still the advertising revenue could help pay the PR and legal costs.     As always I pity the contradictory government steers that architects must address but I challenge any residents or disinterested adjudicators to look at the plans for 10 minutes and not be convinced that Carlton is still going for gross overdevelopment.

David Dewhurst ● 6908d1 Comments ● 6905d

Illegally parked Traffic Warden issuing parking tickets.

A parking warden today issued a ticket outside my shop on a vehicle that was loading. The parking warden insisted that the vehicle had been there for six minutes. The driver felt he had not and as an observer I agreed he had not been there that long at all, the traffic warden was unrepentant and the man will now have to appeal this ticket.I then realised that the warden was parked in a spot where I have previously been ticketed for parking. I pointed out to the warden that he had no more right to park illegally then I did or than the man who had just been ticketed. The response was an aggressively / dismissive ''Are you trying to tell me how to do my job''. to which I replied ''I am not only telling you how to do your job, I am also going to report you for writing an unlawfully ticket and for illegal parking''.I then went over to take the number of his motorbike but the warden  fled on it,in an attempt to prevent me writing his registration down. I believe it was LB07 LEAM, I have complained to the council but I am not convinced they will care.I personally do not understand why a road that is full of boarded up and derelict buildings and that is only used for access, needs parking restrictions that ban all parking during the day anyway. Every building will soon be demolish. Currently there is practically no through traffic and we have such a shortage of parking available to the High Street shopper that it restricts trade in the area and prevents the High Street from functioning as it should.Sorry for the rant but it needed saying.

Philip Walsh ● 6913d7 Comments ● 6908d