Forum Topic

GSK want a 600-space car park in Boston Manor Park

http://www.hounslowchronicle.co.uk/west-london-news/local-hounslow-news/2009/02/20/glaxosmithkline-wants-to-build-car-park-in-boston-manor-park-109642-22957358/I can't believe that councillors think this is acceptable.

Karen Adams ● 6305d52 Comments

GSK are relocating staff from other sites that they have closed or sold off.There is going to be about a 40% increase in numbers at Brentford commuting from their former locations some of which are quite distant. A sign of the times .Most TVU students have to do part time work to pay for their studies and costs and need a car to be able to travel to their jobs. A recent survey found that 80% of those who have a part time job work nights and have to travel more than 10 miles. the unsocial hours means they have to have the use of a car as it provides the means to an income.I live next door to a house full of students, they are a nice lot but have 3 cars and the one relief is that 2 of them are small and old and they are not bothered where they park them as our street is always packed bumper to bumper!

Michael Brandt ● 6287d

Just as an aside, staff at TVU seem to be telling visitors to park on Windmill Road.

Karen Adams ● 6287d

Matt - "few complaints about the quality of the parks in Brentford"  Hmm.  Is that why £10m of investment is called for in Gunnersbury and several million in Boston Manor....?  Both parks were neglected long term by Hounslow's former Labour administration which is why there is now such a large repair bill. Anyhow, to answer the question - yes, an options appraisal is what's needed and I raised this with the Friends (Linda Masset) and Mike Jordan, Director of Environment, at the recent IBAC meeting as a key next step.AndrewAndrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6287d

has anybdy bothered to check why not all car parking spaces at GSK building are not fully used,is it because GSK will not let there staf use the building own carpark.

William Micheal Read ● 6287d

"* One ward, two parks, lots of work *There can be few complaints about the quality of the parks in Brentford, with both Gunnersbury and Boston Manor parks having loads to offer. But when they both include historic listed buildings there are particular challenges. In the past fortnight I’ve attended presentations on how Gunnersbury can repair and renew the historic buildings and how those repairs can be paid for, and I’ve also helped progress a similar initiative that will examine how to deal with the challenges facing the Jacobean Boston Manor House and the park that sits behind it. The latter will be guided by the excellent work of the Friends of Boston Manor, who continue to impress us with their dedication."Does this mean BMP is getting an options appraisal too? Has anyone told the Friends?

Karen Adams ● 6287d

Do we know who's in the project steering group, or is that yet to be decided?

Kath Richardson ● 6299d

I dont know whether webcast is yet online (I watched the webcast live on the evening) but decision was made to proceed with consultation and setting up a project steering group.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6299d

Are we allowed to know what the result of the meeting was on 24 Feb ?  Looks to me like GSK are already using the visitors' car park as their own.

Pat Kingham ● 6299d

I'd be interested in GSK substantiating their need for another 600 spaces with a few maps (like the school travel plans produce) showing where all their cars came from on a few random days. Yes, it is a bind coming from Amersham but surely they don't all do  ? Increasing their incentives to use public transport / cycling may still help. As the government needs to solve the NO2 Euro limits, something must be going to happen soon to discourage us using our cars. Perhaps GSK will ensure that all their fleet in the car park will be electric ?The only person I knew at GSK house used to drive four miles each day and held their secretary who biked it in superhero category for risking the perceived dangers.......I would be interested in seeing what they could do under the motorway and I suspect that it they threw enough money at it they may come up with a very well screened attractive design. Whether that could be done for 600 cars and whether it could be done without slicing the grounds in two and preventing convenient access to the playing fields and the bridge over the canal, I am not sure.Without having seen it, I am slightly suspicious of a GSK-funded consultant preparing the report on the house. Far be it from me to suggest that it might lack independence but I have come across consultants who have been prepared to "egg-up" their reports to give the messages that their sponsor wishes to get over.

Tim Henderson ● 6301d

I'd just like to say that, far from the squabble that the Hounslow Chronicle is reporting the majority of posts on this strand have been thoughtful and constructive: it has been informative to read them (as well as giving me the odd chuckle.) It just goes to show that debate does not need to be adverserial and that there are plenty of voices in the community that deserve to be listened to.

Jon Hardy ● 6302d

Adam - you are doing Brentford down a bit more than it deserves.While I agree with you about some of the places (hurry up Morrisons - quickly re-brand Somerfield) there are other places that are v good. I've socialised (or, met up with mates, as I like to call it) in the Weir (good food), in Prezzo (good food), in Grounds (good coffee), in Pompadoms (good food), in the Fire Station (fantastic cocktails). There are good places, others too I'm sure, but I'll concede many many grotty places too.I know people who've worked at Sky and they talk more about driving down to the London Apprentice rather than come into Brentford. There is hope for Brentford if that's the competition...

Alan Clark ● 6302d

Fair points, I think the problem with Brentford as a town is that most/all of the large companies are based along the A4, so I wonder how many of their employees ever actually venture into Brentford ? - other than perhaps walking (or driving !) to the Tesco on Syon Lane.Without meaning any offence to the regulars, places like the Beehive and Somerfield hardly induce people to frequent such establishments - personally I find the Somerfield one of the most depressing stores I've ever visited.  The Weir on the other hand, which I like, does however feel completely at odds with its surroundings.Perhaps one of the major problems facing Brentford is the fact that many people (probably myself included) use the area solely as a place to live but go elsewhere to make purchases, socialise etc.  It's a base, but if I'm not at home then I'm usually anywhere but in Brentford.

Adam Beamish ● 6302d

While Michael's note was tarnished with a huge amount of cynicism, it did begin to touch on the alternative view: that actually the local area benefits from having large companies based here. As well as the direct contributions to local improvement projects there must be massive benefits in terms of rates being paid, employees spending money locally and public transport, when used, being used in the opposite direction to the normal mass of communters (e.g. coming out of London).There is, of course, an argument for making sure that local amenities are not destroyed in the process. But my guess is that much of Boston Manor Park's current amenities have benefitted from GSK contributions. If not, then any further use of space by GSK should directly be offset by further contribitions. This sounds less like 'bungs' and more like mutual benefit - if that is possible.There is also a likely cliam that employees of places like Sky, Heidelberg and GSK could use local services and businesses more ... but its not really their fault if we fail to set up or attract the sort of places they would use. There's only a few decent places to eat and drink. And this forum has previously been full of criticism for one of them, the Weir, saying its not right for local people. We do not exactly help ourselves here, do we?

Alan Clark ● 6302d

Those of us that live in the vicinity of GSK already have cars outside our houses all day and a CPZ looming.

Pat Kingham ● 6302d

*your pockets* (or should that be 'ones')

Karen Adams ● 6302d

As a pragmatist myself I can see the advantages that this proposal has, but it still sends out a message that _if_ you're pockets are deep enough Hounslow's planning process (and who knows what else?) is a house of cards. This is what I'm finding incredible: long term havoc for short term gain.

Karen Adams ● 6302d

An interesting view, a fair amount of which I agree with.Personally, I don't like Brentford and if people ask me where I live I say Kew Bridge because whilst the postal address is Brentford, I live where the High Street becomes Kew Bridge Road.  Brentford is never going to be another Kew, Richmond or Chiswick.  Call me a snob if you will (I was born in Cleethorpes and never see myself as a snob) but Brentford has always had the feeling of being a 'poor' town.  On the high street alone, there's an uneasy juxtaposition between offices, tatty shops, half derelict buildings and modern residential developments.  Brentford is one of those places you drive through on the way to somewhere else, and I can't see that ever changing.  At least with things like the Area Action Plan, long-term development plans south of the High Street etc, things should get better, or more precisely at least they can't get any worse than what we have now.Realistically how many of the public are going to use a 600 space car park at weekends to spend time in the Brentford area ? - other than for attending Griffin Park or hopping on the tube to Westfields/central London I can't imagine there being much if any demand for such parking.Not that I'm not knocking what you say, and in many ways I agree in terms of securing the long-term future of the Manor House etc, but I think we would be wrong to suggest there are any other wider community benefits.

Adam Beamish ● 6302d

This town is blighted by hot air and politics.Ever since I was at school here in the 1970's Brentford seems to have been used as a training ground for political and beaurocratic wannabees. Provided with a minefield of intellectuals who take every opportunity to throw a spanner in the works of the many good ideas that have emerged.So what have we got?  Not much and certainly not much that has endured.It's still a mucky old town with broken pavements and dog's mess everywhere.Hounslow, as a council has managed to muck up most of the borough with a legacy of poor architecture and planning approvals.Still. the same old blinkered rose tinted rhetoric is evident on these threads.It's a fact that very few GSK employees live nearby compared to even 12 years ago.Many do not live within routes of public transport. Ever tried to get from Amersham to Brentford by Public transport? I have. It takes nearly 3 hours in the morning. It takes about an hour by car and just 25 mins out of peak. Many come from the Bracknell, Reading & Woking areas but even the Reading train service is no more.Again, GSK would have had a 700 extra space underground car park if the DoE and LBH had let them when the place was built. The total was still less than what was available at Beecham House and it's other sites.Most of Brentford's visible enhancements have come from Section 106 money paid by GSK. Take GSK out of Brentford/Hounslow and the place really will be in trouble and will fall into the grubby hands of developers who will be in like vultures.  If you think GSK are being underhand then you are naive. They are amateurs compared to the methods of property developers.Meanwhile, while all the politics and waffle go on, most of us just haplessly watch the decay continue, knowing nothing satisfactory will result.A car park concealed under the far end of the park and the long term securing of the Manor House and the park is nothing.The alternative? A car stuck all day outside your house or the oppressive straightjacket of  CPZ's and the perversity of residents paying for it!The matter is quite simple. It should be yes but with strict stipulations that get the best possible benefit. Ie underground and exits via the existing route on GSK site. Public use at weekends etc.There have been grants, awards, and all manner of things that could have been awarded since the 1980's, but all this hot air and no action is the only legacy.The cosy circle of drinks and local politicos has gone on for far too many years and what has it achieved? Best mates one week, sworn adversaries the next - just like the commons, and what have they managed to get right?.When is common and pragmatic sense going to prevail in this town?

Michael Brandt ● 6302d

Thanks to Andrew for his responses.Neil - when you say Hounslow have 'lost' the person, and I think I know who you are referring to, assuming they aren't literally 'lost' I presume you mean they either moved on from LBH or that post was a victim of recent cuts ? (just a question, not passing judgement on job cuts as we all know the economic reality at the mo).

Adam Beamish ● 6302d

Having seen a copy of the report, the consultant emailed me with questions and sent me a copy, I can see the need for  funding even if it means a car park.Residents need to be aware the heritage Lottery funding is not as plentyful as it once was. Other grants are hard to come by and also Hounslow Council has lost the person who tried to champion heritage issues out in the widerr heritage environment.

Neil Chippendale ● 6302d

I am sure safety of car park users would be considered in any application.  As to the risk presented to the A4 itself I would suggest that the A4 flyover structure is already very accessible and the risks would be no greater with a car park underneath, but these are just the sort issues that the local area committee should explore...Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6302d

Although not Hounslow's Heritage Champion, I did identify we were one of the last boroughs in London to appoint one and, when I became aware of this, asked the Leader of the Council to crack on with filling the post.My understanding is that no application has been made for Boston Manor House.  English Heritage and other funding bodies quite sensibly require that complete surveys of required works are undertaken and business plans completed for the sustainable operation of a house like Boston Manor before they will award any grants.  Only some of this work has been undertaken.  It is also worth noting that works required on Boston Manor House will probably require several funding streams - it is unlikely to all come from one source.The survey of the building was funded and completed by GSK in 2007/8.  It is this that I have nnow requested goes in the public domain so local councillors and the community can get a full grasp of the work that needs to be undertaken.My view is that particularly in the past six months this work has been rather under-resourced by the Council.  However, whilst the local engagement has thus far been rather lacking, it is atleast a step in the right direction that this week's report is going to the Executive and the need to save Boston Manor House is now being discussed at the highest level of the Council.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6302d

My understanding is that hot desking is being phased in to some areas of the Council under the Performance Improvement Programme - although I sensed when this was first discussed that there was plenty of opposition.  Councillors already hotdesk (it would be completely unjustifiable if we didnt!), but perhaps we need senior officers to do the same and help lead the way?!If there was a significant increase in hotdesking at the Civic Centre (which might free up office space for rent to other organisations or sub-contractors?) I suspect this might well lead to the car park being insufficient. I dont see any great momementum towards hotdesking at the Civic Centre, as seems to have been the case at GSK.Having said all that I would strongly encourage more people to find ways of walking, cycling and using public transport as I and many others manage.  Then of course a greater expansion of car parks would not be necessary.However this demands further investment in cycle routes and public transport on a scale we havent yet seen from this government.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6302d

Cllr Lynch, I believe?Has Hounslow made an application to any grant-making bodies seeking funding for Boston Manor House since it was identified as Heritage at Risk?

Karen Adams ● 6302d

Andrew,Interested that you cite the example of the Civic Centre.  When certain Council buildings around the Borough (eg. Glenhurst Road) were closed earlier this decade and all the staff relocated to the Civic Centre this left the staff car park massively over-subscribed.  Now admittedly I'm not, and never was, fully aware of everything going on within LBH but I never recalled any serious discussion about the possibility of enlarging the car park etc, despite this situation causing an overspill onto surrounding streets (before the CPZ was introduced).  Can't help therefore but read your post and think what's different about GSK ?.

Adam Beamish ● 6302d

A car park directly under the A4 flyover and open to the public?  Has anyone sought a security consultation?

Sarah Felstead ● 6302d

Picking up on some of the comments today:** Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP)This part of the Local Development Framework can be downloaded from http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/baap.pdfCllr Connelly may not be aware but the officer advice has always been that the BAAP cannot seek to prescribe every aspect of development in Brentford.  The BAAP sets out policy for key development sites.The only significant part of the BAAP on Boston Manor reads:"5. Boston Manor ParkOpen parkland linked historically with the Grand Union Canal when a section of the Boston Manor’s grounds were compulsorily purchased to form the canal and associated floodplains. The grounds of the Manor at the bottom of the slope have been over ridden by the supports of the M4 motorway, and are visually intruded upon by its elevated section, which has no noise attenuation measures. Consequently, although the canal and River Brent feature in a scenic parkland landscape, the whole area is overwhelmed by the noise and visual intrusion of the motorway and the fifteen-storey plus GlaxoSmithKline headquarters on its southern border, which shields it from wider view and closes off the river valley."This captures rather well the inherent conflicts of design and landscaping in the park with which we now have to work.Whilst I supported the BAAP as the best we were going to get, I have previously stated that I think it lacks ambition in many areas.  This is why I have supported more in-depth community visioning and action on Brentford High Street, for example, and criticised the absence of real direction on the Commerce Rd site from the BAAP.  Watermans Park moorings, location of new schools, GPs etc are other issues that I would have liked to have seen addressed.  Some argue these should be/ are covered by the Hounslow Plan and other Council strategies.Despite all that I felt the BAAP was a document better to have in place than not (and given the complexities of the planning system quite an achievement).** GSK and additional parking spacesI have no doubt that a lot more information will be provided through the process which will need to be given due consideration, but times and technology do change.The latest I have been advised on visits to GSK House for community events is that the number of people using the building has increased through greater use of hot-desking for example (just as at the Civic Centre).  Whilst I would far rather staff moved within walking, cycling or public transport distance of GSK House, with the size of workforce (and number of mergers/ closures of other sites leading to consolidation in the Brentford HQ) this may not be realistic.Clearly hot-desking reduces the CO2 emissions/ per person of the building - although the benefits may then be cancelled out by staff then driving to the building.  It would be good to see the stats for this.** 'Bungs to the council' or perhaps 'mitigation/benefit for the local community'?Enabling development is not unusual.  Recent examples where negative impacts/ additional pressure of development on infrastructure have led to mitigation/ community benefit in Brentford are the Musical Museum and new investment into Carville Park South....  Boston Manor House would seem a worthy successor.As it happens the suggested car park under the A4 would apparently be used by the public during the weekend and GSK staff.  This would increase the financial viability/ sustainability of Boston Manor House sometimes enabling fundraising events or sporting activities in the park that brought people in from further a field.  This seems eminently sensible.** Planning permission/ prejudiceFrom the feedback today, I'm glad that I'm not the only person that things this is an idea worth exploring.  As I said in my first posting I remain open to viable alternatives if anyone has some up the sleeves and believe the current proposal would need to be extremely well designed to be at all viable.If officers advise me that my interests/ comments leading up to a decision are prejudicial then - as councillors are now allowed - I would speak for or against the planning application before withdrawing from the planning committee.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6302d

I believe if a sight can be found then LBH should go ahead with the proposal. What about sitting the car park below the M4 flyover. I'm not sure how many cars that could hold but when I ran a re-enactment in the Park we sited the re-enactors camp and car park under the flyover.The house is in need of major repairs and LBH can't fund it. do we what BM House going the same way as some of the buidlings in Gunnersbury.

Neil Chippendale ● 6302d

Phil, my posting at 14.18 makes it very clear that my use of the word "bung" refers to the council, in effect, selling planning consents in return for financial inducements. As a former member of the planning committee I am open to challenge over any decision I took part in in the past. In relation to that, I am happy to be reminded of any situation where I supported a major application the terms of which deviated hugely from council planning policy because the developer offered us (the Council) a tasty wedge to ignore the planning ground rules.I reiterate the point that needs to be made. If the parking standards for commercial developments in the Brentford Plan, adopted on 27th January 2009, do not apply to GSK because they are offering the council a financial sweetener, then the plan is not worth the paper it is written on. Presumably the members who do not grasp this point were just having a laugh when they adopted it on the night?

John Connelly ● 6303d

JohnIn the light of your reference to "bungs" could you first of all please clarify that you are making no allegation of personal financial inducements being offered to councillors in respect of this proposal?  As it happens I don't believe that you are, but your regrettable choice of wording makes it necessary for me to ask you to confirm this.  I would like to understand more about what you mean by your constant references to "financial gain" for the council.  The only benefit I have seen mentioned anywhere is the restoration of an historic building which is recognised to be an important part of our local heritage.  Please let me know if you have any reason to believe that I have misunderstood this.Let me state for the record that I would never, that is NEVER, place financial gain for the council or the advancement of commercial interests ahead of the wishes of residents.  Having fought the last four local elections on this very issue, it would be an extraordinary volte face were I to do so.As I think I have already made clear my only objective in all this as a community councillor is to reach the solution that is most desirable to local people.  It is people that matter to me, not plans.  Plans are - or should be - there to serve the people, not the other way around.It is inconsistent for you and yours to dismiss the importance of honest consultation and then in your closing sentence to be portraying yourselves as the voice of the local residents.  I know from past personal experience that when one is in a small organisation messy compromises sometimes have to occur in order to keep the snipers happy, but in this case John something seriously has to give if any credibility at all is to be retained.

Phil Andrews ● 6303d

I am not being mischeivious at all. The Brentford Plan has been supported by all councillors posting on this website. If the plan is to have any integrity nothing but marginal adjustments should be considered acceptable in planning terms.Phil, in stating that the principle of this idea might be acceptable to the Executive, appears to be saying that the Executive need not feel bound by the Council's planning policies if there are financial incentives to ignore it. I suggest that once there is acceptance that a large development can be treatly radically differently than elsewhere the principles in the plan itself will be totally undermined. This would set the precedent for other major developments in Brentford demanding the right to the same parking standards permitted to GSK. It would be extremely difficult to defend the Council's policy at planning appeals, given the grounds for this exception.As a member of the Sustainable Development Committee,Councillor Dakers actually states "THE PROPOSED CAR PARK....IF WELL DESIGNED.....SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE WAY FORWARD TO BRING MUCH NEEDED CAPITAL FUNDING TO BOSTON MANOR HOUSE." (My emphasis) In terms of the Member Code of Conduct on planning he appears to have already prejudged the issue and should therefore not take part in determining any application on this issue. More fundamentally, the prospect of a financial benefit to the council should NEVER be basis for granting planning consent.I do not doubt the concerns about Boston Manor House. However, I am convinced that if a coach and horses is driven through planning  policy for short time financial gain the implications will be massive in terms of traffic generation in the area. Who believes that GSK could not "persuade" staff to relocate to Brentford without parking provision? If the argument is valid for this employment location then it must also be valid for Sky, the new Gillete site, Commerce Road, Brentford Town Centre, Chiswick roundabout and even possibly the remaining land on Chiswick Park.Jon, I rarely engage in debates on current council policy these days. I believe the principle at risk here is far too great to go unchallenged. Short term gain for the council must not be allowed to create long term pain for Brentford residents.

John Connelly ● 6303d

Cllr Connelly is being a bit mischeivious: Cllrs Andrews and Dakers are simply not prejudging the issue before the matter comes before the Planning Committee on which they both sit.  If they were to state outright opposition to such a project they would be obligated to recluse themselves from sitting on the Committee which would deny local people their representation which, given their undeniable commitment to community engagement would be a loss to making residents voices heard in such an important matter.There are serious issues here: encroachment on open land; sustainable transport; and preserving our local heritage.  Anyone who knows these two councillors at all will understand where, broadly speaking, they stand on such issues and also understand that to suggest either would be party to 'cheque-book planning permission' as Cllr Connelly suggests is specious or ill-informed.The Council is obligated to look at any proposal openly and on the record - that is what is happening now. It would be totally wrong to reject a proposal that might be to the public's benefit without a proper debate.  Equally, if such a scheme is to be rejected then it should also be done openly and on the record and not because of some doctrinaire approach.  I find it difficult to beleive that Cllr Connelly does not know this and sad that such an important local issue is getting mired in cheap partisan point-scoring.  Enough of it! Let's get on with the job: that is challenging enough.

Jon Hardy ● 6303d

I got the distinct impression that they were proposng using the playing fields immediately bordering the GSK building. This would compromise access to the Grand Union Canal. Certainly the concrete area is nowhere near large enough for 600 cars.The queston I would like asked at some point is what steps have the council taken to secure funding for a heritage project since the building became 'at risk' or however English Heritage phrased it? Both BMH and Gunnersbury House seem to have suffered because of a lack of vision on appropriate use of the buildings.

Karen Adams ● 6303d

The responses of Andrew Dakers and Phil Andrews on this issue are extremely worrying. On 27th January 2009 Hounslow Council unanimously adopted the Brentford Area Action Plan, laying down, after extensive public consultation, proposals for future development in the area. Among other aspects, this included parking standards for major commercial developments.Within a few weeks GSK, one of the country's largest multinational companies, has indicated that it will offer the council a financial "bung" if it is given permission to build a car park providing 600 extra car spaces at its office complex at the junction of the heavily congested Boston Manor Road with the A4. This is in spite of the fact that the development already has more parking on site than was appropriate given the parking standards when the original permission was granted.Are Andrew and Phil saying that their support for the local planning policy is capable of massive adjustment provided "the price is right"? If so, presumably Sky, whose new office development is in a far less public transport friendly location than GSK, can submit an amendment to their development plan to create sufficient parking to enable their employees to also commute by car and tear up the Green Travel Plan they have already agreed to? And no, you cannot argue that you will only agree to this if they give some money for a council project - because that is what is meant by "selling planning permissions".For that matter, what price withdrawal of opposition to the Third Runway if you get re-elected next May? £10 million for Gunnersbury Park? £8 million for improved leisure facilities at Isleworth? The question may seem unfair, but once the principle has been adopted.......More importantly, if it is OK for GSK to buy exemption from planning rules, should the many local residents currently being pursued by the Council's enforcement team for building (often relatively small) extensions without the required planning consent, seek to have the same principles applied to their cases? How about: -"Dear Leader of the Council, please find my blank check attached payable to you. Please fill in the blank, apply the funds to whatever council project you deem appropriate, and let me keep my extension which projects 1 metre further forward from the front of my house than it should do. I do not expect any more favourable treatment than that huge company in Brentford that you accepted money from in return for ignoring your normal planning rules."I accept that funding difficulties create major problems in relation to Boston Manor House and elsewhere in Hounslow. However, this issue is not one of consultation but whether or not council planning policies have integrity. If it is the Executive's view that money can buy exemption from the normal rules we might as well tear up the Brentford Plan now and erect a banner at the Civic Centre reading "BUNG BOYS RULE!"

John Connelly ● 6303d

Checking back my e-mails I see that the Director of Environment did send councillors the report for the Executive on 11th of this month (the day before I came down with flu) with the suggestion that this matter does get put on the Monitoring meeting (open forum) for March 5th.I will check with Cllr Fisher who is the Chair of this Committee to see if this has been done. 

Jon Hardy ● 6303d

JonWhatever the merits or otherwise of the proposal itself, it would self-evidently not be an abrogation of our duty to consult for the Executive to give "in-principle" support for something subject to consultation!You are however absolutely right, once we have an application on which to consult there is no way a sham consultation would get past this Area Committee.  The views of IBAC must necessarily be included in any report to Sustainable Development, and I for one would be insistent upon the involvement of Linda Massey and the Friends group throughout the process. But when all is said and done I truly believe sham consultations (a la Worton Green) to be a thing of the past in this part of the world in any event.  We don't always get it right but, unlike in the bad old days of skullduggery, back-room plotting and sleight of hand, we do at least always try.

Phil Andrews ● 6303d

Provided that, as I understand, the car park is restricted to that very unpleasant concrete area under the M4 flyover, I feel that the price is worthwhile to secure the future of the house. Boston Manor House is considered by expert to be a rare example of certain aspects of Jacobean architecture - the staircase in particular. The state into which it has been allowed by Hounslow Council to fall over many years is such that if this continues it will cease to exist as part of our local heritage. This could be restored to being a thing of beauty. The concrete under the flyover will never achieve such status! Hazel Dakers

Hazel Dakers ● 6303d

As the Chair of the Isleworth and Brentford Area Planning Committee I am somewhat interested (!!!!!) in this matter: I am reading the papers for the Executive for a start and will be seeking an urgent briefing from the Head of Development Control thereafter.  It does seem strange to me that such a matter of local importance should not come to the Area Committee first where local knowledge and response could be utilised. It also seems a bit foolish as it gives the impression of trying to by-pass local consultation though I am sure that is not the case.  It may be that GSK wanted to put a toe in the water to see if the Executive would rule such a scheme 'out of order' from the off, before they went through the work of a formal application. Nevertheless, even though I appreciate that any decision on this will have a borough-wid strategic implication and therefore require imput from the Executive, I abhor the fact that GSK did not first put this on the agenda of one of our Monitoring meetings where there is an open forum and they might have engaged productively with local people who care passionately about what happens to our open spaces.Be assured, any Planning application for this will come to the Planning Committee which sits every month at Brentford Free Church for comment and then go on to the Sustainable Development Committee Chaired by Cllr O'Reilly.  As Chair of IBAC Planning I will welcome speakers on this topic when the time comes and I am sure that Cllr O'Reilly will too.Cllr Connelly makes some good points and puts this proposal in a historic context.  One of the questions that I shall be seeking the answer to is the transport basis on which the development was given permission in the first place: I may be mistaken, but I thought that there was a committment to encourage sustainable transport i.e. tube supplemented by shuttle buses.  It is of obvious concern that GSK seem to be moving away from this (if that was in fact the case) and one needs to understand what exactly is being proposed.  But that is what I intend to find out.  When there is  proper planning application (if GSK wishes to move it forward) I will post on this forum so people will know where on the Council website this can be found.Sincerely,Jon Hardy, Cllr for Syon

Jon Hardy ● 6303d

There is a huge car park underneath Hyde Park in Central London, nearly 50 years old. Another under Abingdon Green at the Houses of Parliament. Many still don't know they are there. They exist because even 50 years ago, there was some degree an sensitivity about the clutter of car parking.I have no problem with GSK having a car park extension. Had John Prescotts office and one or two of the daft policies not got in the way, GSK would have had a very substantial concealed car park when the place was built.As residents, we would not have had to pay ourselves for CPZs nor endure commuter parking overspill.The transport improvements are evaporating, The excellent fast train service, the only way to get into Central London and the City in less than 20 mins vanished. to be replaced by an even slower than 1950's stopping service.Even the PVR on the bus routes are being reduced.The car is here to stay, it is obvious that it won't be petrol or diesel for much longer. but the fact is the rose tinted view that every one lives in sight of factory gates is history. GSK has merged so often that it's workforce is located from all over and public transport cannot accomodate a large part of it.An underground car park with part of it for public use and weekend use with a park and ride bus link, huge improvements that are sustained to the park and area would be a huge relief to the area and might just help revive the town with it.As long as it does not reduce the space in the park for users. I think it is fine.

Michael Brandt ● 6303d

VanessaThank you for explaining to me how to go about my job as a member of the local authority.  Obviously if I am in need of some advice as to how best to consult and engage with my community, or on how to avoid building on precious amenity space valued by users and local residents, or indeed on how to be a successful councillor appreciated by one's constituents, then you with your impressive track record would be the first person I would turn to.Actually I have absolutely no need to defend anything here.  This is not my report.  I am not in the habit of giving an unequivocal NO to any suggestion until I have considered all sides of the argument and reached an informed view on the strength of the facts.The facts as I understand them at the moment are that GSK wishes to annexe an area of ground currently within Boston Manor Park for a car park, and the suggestion is that without it doing so there would be no means available with which to regenerate Boston Manor House.If this can be demonstrated to me to be the case and if residents and users of the park decide after a thorough, fair and impartial consultation (please PM me for an explanation of the concept if it is still as unfamiliar to you as it was when when you were a councillor) that they wish to see such a project proceed, then I will support it.  If neither of these conditions can be satisfied, plus a few others I have identified which haven't been raised on this thread, then I won't.  Simple really, isn't it?I am disappointed, but not surprised, that you see consultation as having "sod-all" to do with this process.  Your contempt for the community you were elected to serve is not shared by everybody, and I would be grateful if you would desist from implying that I and other members of my Group and of the administration would instinctively adopt the same approach to such an important aspect of the process as was your wont.If this "in principle" support is given at Executive on Tuesday, I would expect the commitment to consultation contained in the report to be honoured in full, and that is the point at which residents would be able to deliver their verdict.  It is inconceivable that with so many talented and hard-working local councillors, a dynamic and proactive Area Committee and a superb Friends group operating out of the park a fudged consultation would be allowed to obscure local feeling.For me such a consultation would provide us with an exciting opportunity to gauge the progress we have made thus far in opening up the process of our local government and reversing the culture of secrecy and deceit that has prevailed at the London Borough of Hounslow for so long.  For anybody who shares the view that this is a desirable objective to have, this report should hold no fears irrespective of whether or not its basic premise should be supported.

Phil Andrews ● 6303d

Notice to self - read report before making assumptions !.  Sorry about that.You can use the London Profiler website to see PTAL levels throughout London.

Adam Beamish ● 6304d

As a ward councillor that isnt known for sitting on the fence (!) - and has long supported investment into the House and Park - here are my thoughts...1) It is frustrating that these plans have come out in a report to the Council's Executive without a prior conversation on the report with local residents and the Friends of Boston Manor Park. The process feels a bit backwards in that respect;2) The 2007/8 report looking at the condition of the House must now be shared with local Councillors and the community.  This will make clear the level of investment that needs to be secured;3) A steering group involving all interested parties should be established immediately so that any other proposals that would bring in the necessary investment can be examined and a way forward determined with the full involvement of the local community;I am communicating these views in an email to the Leader of the Council, Leader of the Independent Community Group and Director of Environmental Services this afternoon.Having said that I welcome the fact that there is now renewed momentum on an issue around which there has been silence for such a long time.  When I was first sounded out on the early thinking behind these proposals I emphasised the need for community involvement every step of the way.  The proposed car park as I understand it would be on the hard standing under the A4 flyover.  If well designed and implimented it sounds like a realistic and reasonable way forward to bring the much needed capital funding to Boston Manor House ....but I remain open to alternative proposals.The reality is though that we all need to move faster on this.  Boston Manor House is a building of national significance that is at real risk.  In the current funding climate we may all find we need to compromise a bit if this treasure is not to go the same way as the stables in Gunnersbury Park.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6304d

"Of course you also need to remember that the report to the Executive has been prepared by a Council Officer for discussion etc. by Councillors - no member of the Executive has actually written the report."The report does say "Report by: Peter Thompson - Leader". Although I appreciate he won't under any circumstances have been burning midnight oil over it, it is in his name. I guess I'll have to have a look at what PTAL is (thanks for the tip). What I _do_ know is that GSK shuttle buses are not so apparent in the area as they used to be and that there is a completely unused 'parking lot' underneath the A4 on which I heard GSK failed to negotiate terms, so maybe the 'pressing problem' of parking is one of GSK's own making.

Karen Adams ● 6304d

PTAL of 3 actually, so medium - interested to know the ratio of staff to parking spaces if the additional spaces got agreed (guess I should read the report !)

Adam Beamish ● 6304d

Karen,Of course you also need to remember that the report to the Executive has been prepared by a Council Officer for discussion etc. by Councillors - no member of the Executive has actually written the report.I haven't read the report as yet nor am I am that well informed regarding the background etc. but my gut reaction is to agree with John's comments - all parking standards these days as set out within relevant development plan documents are maximums etc. with developers encouraged to provide less rather than more parking.Surprised GSK think they need more parking as lots of staff do seem to arrive via public transport, although I imagine they could argue that in terms of PTAL (public transport accessibility level) their offices aren't well located for public transport (I'll guess GSK has a PTAL of 2, i.e. low).

Adam Beamish ● 6304d

http://www.fobm.org.uk/Membership.htmAs a long time Friend (but not on the committee) I'm sure they'd be glad of an increase in numbers. It's run on a shoestring through the commitment of volunteers. Also highly recommend the newly resurfaced tennis courts as fantastic value-for-money.

Karen Adams ● 6304d

No doesn't wash - sorry, the fence sitting comment is because there is no unequivocal NO to these proposals, it is sod-all to do with consultation and well you know it, but then your defence is always attack. No-one can be in two places at once but at least a 'phone call or e-mail to the Leader leaving him in no doubt of your view, if indeed NO to this act of vandalism is your opinion or e-mailing the whole Exec. would be a good idea?

Vanessa Smith ● 6304d

Let the Battle of Brentford (re)commence.

Karen Adams ● 6304d

KarenWhat that paragraph means is that it would be "appropriate" for the Executive to offer its in-principle support, should it wish to do so, in very much the same way as in would be "inappropriate" for the Executive to attempt to bind the Council as the planning authority.  It is a neutral, legalistic and procedural statement.  It does not in itself mean that the Executive is going to approve it.  Unless you are either clairvoyant or have some kind of insider knowledge you cannot know at this stage what the Executive's position on this matter is, as it has not yet been discussed.However in saying this I don't want to pretend that I am confident this will not win majority support.  The report is on the agenda for a reason.  I take on board John's concerns and share some of them.  As always there is another side to the story, of course, but if I want to examine the proposal at Executive I will need to spend the next 48 hours or so trying to work out a way in which to be in two places at once.The most important element of this is the commitment to consultation.  That is where any battle will be fought.  I have been accused on another forum of "sitting on the fence" because I have expressed my desire that the will of local people and park users should prevail, whatever view the Executive takes.  Then again, my accuser was never very big on consultation herself and her comments do not therefore come as a great surprise.

Phil Andrews ● 6304d

When GSK originally received planning permission for their headquarters building it was on the understanding that there would be limited parking on the site and that staff would be encouraged to travel by public transport.The TVU building across the road also has very limited parking availability, and the principle of limiting parking on Great West Road developments is well established.There is a need to find funds to invest in our open spaces. However, to allow one of the country's richest multinational companies to effectively "buy" additional parking (at the expense of part of the park) would be an act of political prostitution on the part of the council's Executive.I can understand officers offering this option as they are paid to come up with solutions. However, to do this woulod completely undermine the council's parking standards in commercial developments throughout Brentford.I hope that the current Executive will not adopt such an unprincipled approach.

John Connelly ● 6305d

No, I've just read the agenda from the report to the executive - agenda item 10 on 24 Feb "5.11 Nevertheless, it is appropriate for the Executive to offer comment and offer its 'in principle' support at this stage, whilst understanding that this cannot bind the Council as planning authority."That's the final para. under the heading GSK. To someone as uninformed as me that sounds like a ringing endorsement.It's an easy answer to a pressing problem, but it doesn't make it the right one.

Karen Adams ● 6305d

"I can't believe that councillors think this is acceptable."KarenAs discussion of this amongst councillors does not begin until the next meeting of the Executive - this coming Tuesday - your comment worries me as it would suggest that you know something that I, as a member of the Executive, don't.  If this is the case then I would encourage you to share this information with us through this forum.Any decision on such a proposal would need to be taken by the cross-party Sustainable Development Committee, which could then be overturned (in either direction) by the Mayor of London.  The Executive can only offer in-principle support.The recommendation before Tuesday's Executive is that it should "endorse the principle of these various projects and note the program of work set out in Section 6 which will need to be undertaken in the coming months with potential partners."The projects in question are said to include:* The need to restore and find a viable future use for Boston Manor House...* A complementary desire to restore the immediate grounds of the House as part of a wider enhancement of Boston Manor Park in which it sits.* The desire to improve the leisure and sporting facilities available in the Park.* The desire to improve the sporting facilities which are also on offer in the adjoining fields which are runby the LPFF and thereby achieve a combined sporting "hub".The word "include" implies that this list of projects is not necessarily exhaustive.The full report can be seen here:http://213.210.33.3/Published/C00000262/M00004954/AI00044587/$BostonManorReport.docA.ps.pdfIt is unlikely that I will be at the Executive meeting for discussion of this item due to a very important engagement in my own ward, and had I been I may have had to have declared an interest in any event as my son's football team plays out of Boston Manor Park.  However it is clear that nothing beyond in-principle agreement by the Executive can be the outcome of Tuesday's meeting.The local authority has a duty to consult and indeed its commitment to do so on this particular issue is made very clear in the report.  For what it's worth I can see this from both sides, but would be eager that the will of local residents and park users - whatever that might turn out to be - would ultimately prevail.

Phil Andrews ● 6305d