Forum Topic

Reisdents launch LBH Watch

A powerful new resident-led monitoring body has been launched with a view to highlighting and addressing some of the major flaws in the Civic Centre bureaucracy that came to be identified during the last days of the previous council administration.Endless battles at IBAC (Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee) between elected councillors and intransigent and belligerent Chief Officers revealed some very fundamental deficiencies in the member-officer relationship in Hounslow. ICG councillors in particular encountered a metaphorical brick wall when attempting to open up the process of local government and to introduce more accountability and openness.Delivering its launch statement, LBH Watch Chair Ian Speed emphasised that the new body enjoyed cross-party support, and its current members were drawn from all across the local political spectrum.The full statement reads:"Following the local elections at which all community and third party representation on Hounslow council was wiped out and replaced with a classic two party system only, a group of concerned residents have formed to address any democratic or performance deficits the London Borough of Hounslow may have in administering or delivering its services in your area. The issue that has caught the imagination of most members of the group is Planning, as administered by the Environment & Planning Department and the local Area and council wide Strategic Development Committees. However, we would be very happy to hear from any citizen who has concerns about the way LB Hounslow delivers or administers its services."We are in the process of designing a website with the following key elements:    * A High level section for borough wide issues such as Customer Service standards.    * The key contentious isssues for each of the Area Committees (mainly planning issues and traffic management).    * A self-help section giving residents a guide as to whom to write to or complain to if they are not happy about the way a service is being delivered or administered."We would be interested in hearing from any member of the Hounslow Borough Community who would like to contribute concerns via email or attend one of our meetings. The next meeting is on the evening of Monday 2nd August."We have created an email address at lbhwatch@aol.com. Please email us or text/leave a message on 07835 379595 if you wish to attend a meeting."LBH Watch has also published a list of six Aims and Objectives, which are as follows:    * We believe Hounslow council services should be run according to best practice within the law.    * We believe council officers, however senior, should be fully answerable to councillors and local residents and taxpayers.    * We believe in greater democratic leadership and outward accountability for decision-making to local people.    * We believe that council staff and members should respond to residents' concerns in a prompt, honest and comprehensive manner and act with impeccable integrity at all times.    * We believe Hounslow council services should be delivered as transparently and cost-effectively as possible.    * We encourage members and officers to adhere to the spirit of the Motion on Community Empowerment as approved unanimously by the previous council."The range of talents and expertise that LBH Watch is already able to call upon is quite simply vast. It will use every means available to highlight bad practice and to bring answerability and transparency to our local government.I envisage LBH Watch playing a seminal role in ensuring that the concerns of the community are heard during the four years of the current council administration and maybe beyond. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you think you may be able to help.from A Community In Action - http://philandrews.blogspot.com

Phil Andrews ● 5731d85 Comments

All who have been taking an interest in this group,please note the next meeting is at 7-30 to 7-45 at Isleworth British Legion , 5 North Street Old Isleworth ( near South St Junction).

Ian Speed ● 5678d

"So why won't he apologise to Robin? Does he deny what I have said about the Abbott poster is true?"I can't see that any further comment, and certainly no apology, is necessary. However, as this thread is about LBH Watch, perhaps if Robin Taylor, B.Abbot and Laurence Brown want to actually make themselves known, they could attend the LBH Watch meeting next week and speak to Mr Andrews face to face?   

Steve Taylor ● 5678d

Someone can't spell prominent. The same person who can't spell Dizaei?

Ian Speed ● 5679d

I see a comment that he accepts the poster isn't Robin Taylor. I see no apology.My information is that Andrews now knows the poster isn't Robin Taylor. My information is that Andrews knows the poster is a prominant fellow ICG'er well known to this forum.So why won't he apologise to Robin? Does he deny what I have said about the Abbott poster is true?

Lawrence Brown ● 5679d

I believe he already made a statement on this in his post 23/08/10 14:05:00 so what is there to apologise for?

Steve Taylor ● 5681d

In his post on 23/08/2010 at 10.42 ex ICG councillor Phil Andrews strongly implied that Robin Taylor was the hand behind the post by "B Abbott" on this forum.I understand Phil Andrews now knows full well that this post was not from Robin Taylor but was actually made by one of his own ICG colleagues.Will he apologise publicly on this forum to Robin Taylor for wrongly accusing him I wonder?

Lawrence Brown ● 5681d

Adam,You seem to have overlooked the 47 houses at £25,000 per unit contributing £1,175,000 of the £2,400,000.  You have managed to double the suggested contribution per hotel room.  Is this why so many public sector projects cost twice as much, and take twice as long to deliver, as in the original plan?  Thank goodness you are not running a commercial enterprise!To put your figures into perspective, a contribution of £350,000 for over 600 bedrooms, assuming amortisation over 5 years and an average of 200 occupation nights per room per year, means a contribution of about 50 pence per occupied room night for five years.  Assuming an average room night charge of about £100, an additional 50 pence would not seem to be much of a challenge to the business plan.  You are basically expecting the public to subsidise the profit margins of the developers.I don’t think the public sector is leveraging our assets effectively.

Nick Marbrow ● 5687d

Nick, All I can say is thank god you're not in any position of authority planning wise, because if you were nothing would get built in the current economic climate.£2.4 million in S106 contributions for a 122 bed hotel...£19,672 a room for a use where you cannot require any open space contributions or education contributions.  You're basically expecting developers to pay for the failures of statutory undertakers/the state to provide an acceptable level of infrastructure to support society as a whole, rather than the impact of their proposal, which is competely unreasonable.  To put your figures into perspective, I recently got permission for a hotel consisting of over 600 bedrooms near Heathrow and without digging the file out I think the total S106 contributions amounted to under £350,000.  Whereas for a scheme of that magnitude you'd be wanting about £12 million.  Suffice to say I think I know what my client would have said to that...

Adam Beamish ● 5688d

Adam.I understand that the proposed new Master Robert hotel will have 122 rooms, rather than the 200 rooms that my initial estimate was based on.  I therefore revise my suggestion of a reasonable contribution for being allowed to participate in the existing infrastructure to £2,395,000.

Nick Marbrow ● 5693d

Try asking B Abbott where those 100 uniformed officers are coming from. Then ask how Harriet Harman can be Deputy Leader of the Labour party having committed a string of motoring offences.

Ian Speed ● 5703d

There are still Companies employing Brentfordians going to the wall this week...and suppliers like myself not being being paid.  It's bad luck all round needing sympathy not gestures of glee.Isn't the Labour Party (itself deeply in debt)...now in power at the Civic Centre having a great say in the spending of £600,000,000 each year?

Jim Lawes ● 5704d

Totally bemused me !.  How many people and businesses in this country have been forced into some kind of agreement with creditors due to the recession ?.  How many sports teams would have closed down ?.  How many Councils are actually 'in the black' ?. 

Adam Beamish ● 5705d

For the benefit of anybody who is interested in this puerile digression, I have just received a post on my blog from a person claiming to be this B Abbott.If he and the B Abbott who has launched himself (or herself) on this thread are the same person, the IP address is different to the (Southall) one from which these kind of posts usually emanate and I thought it only fair to point that out in the light of my previous comments.  The poster to my blog is probably closer to home.Not that any of this has much to do with LBH Watch...

Phil Andrews ● 5705d

I don't know why you bother with the "B Abbott" bit my sad, obsessive friend.  It's not as if there is a single person on this forum who doesn't know who you are, is it?Sorry to burst your bubble chap, but the only thing about your OP that I managed to get "worked up about" was the realisation that I was sharing a world, and oxygen, with someone so cretinous as to think he had delivered some kind of deadly political blow by posting up something which is already common knowledge this side of Southall, and which everyone knows I freely discuss with anybody who asks, as though it were a revelation on a par with David Beckham having an illicit affair with the Queen.If and when you ever have the courage to stand for public office yourself rather than hiding behind others we'll have the opportunity to delve into your private life.  Somehow though I doubt there's a huge amount to delve into, other than possibly the time your mother brought you up your breakfast and caught you in a compromising situation with a copy of Razzle when you were 45.Pathetic doesn't even begin to cover it.

Phil Andrews ● 5706d

Thank you to the folks who emailed me to give me congrats for what I did. You agree I did a PUBLIC SERVICE by putting it in the public domain.  Here’s what one of you said..‘Frankly, I cant see what Andrews is getting worked up about.  He gave us all a long story about the medical help he got for a bleeding finger (who cares??) so surely the plebs have the right to know when someone who recently sought public office has mismanaged his own finances.  People in public life can't just pick and choose what we are allowed to know about them’.

B Abbott ● 5706d

Adam,Lets make sure that we associate the costs of major developments with the potential profits of such a development, and not associate that scale of costs with an extension or modification to a single dwelling.If you take say the application to convert the Master Robert to a five story Hotel and 47 two, three, and four bedroom houses, this is a major investment which will make considerable demands on the existing infrastructure – roads, public transport, doctors, teachers, school facilities.  The developer is looking at very significant profits on his investment.  Historically consideration of the impact of the development on the existing infrastructure was not a major issue or a significant cost item.  Our borough is now extremely overcrowded, and the infrastructure is struggling to cope, particularly the roads.  The properties will probably command prices of between £250,000 and £600,000.  For participation in the pre-existing infrastructure each house should make a modest contribution of say £25,000.  The hotel should make a contribution of say £2,000,000 (based on 200 rooms at £10,000 per room).  A total contribution of, say £3,175,000.  What is your estimate of what the contribution will actually be? 

Nick Marbrow ● 5717d

Nick,You've certainly given this a lot of thought !.  I'll come back to you on your post when I've got more time.What I will say about the current planning system and local authorities is that I don't think the public realise the cost involved in a developer making a major planning application.  Because of statutory 8 week/13 week targets and ever reducing resources it has become extremely difficult/impossible for a developer to negotiate/make amendments to a scheme during determination.  So developers are encouraged to have a formal pre-application meeting with the Council, which incurs a statutory charge (anything from £750 - £5000).  When it comes to submission the application has to be accompanied by a plethora of supporting assessments, report and statements, all prepared by a variety of specialist consultants, all of whom charge significant fees.  And of course there's the statutory application fee itself, which will comfortably be in 5 figures.  Then even if the Council are minded to approve the application, the developer is required to enter into a legal agreement with the Council including numerous financial contributions covering a range of areas, such as education provision, highway improvements, public realm improvements etc - it isn't usual for such contributions to be six figure sums.  As the Chairman of Redrow Homes confirmed afew months back, major developers are now spending more on planning related fees than they are on bricks !.

Adam Beamish ● 5718d

Adam,In my previous posting I was inviting you to think outside of the box.  The current system simply cannot provide effective planning control because the number of breaches of planning control guidelines far exceeds the capacity of Planning Department to look at them, let alone deal with them.  LBH Planning now relies almost exclusively on the public to report breaches of the guidelines, and most of the public find the process too daunting.  Even if there is a breach of the guidelines they finish up with the Officer’s subjective view that “no material harm is being caused” or “enforcement action is not considered expedient”.  Full planning control means checking every new development is in conformance with planning rules, and I do mean rules and not guidelines.  The use of guidelines might have been acceptable a few decades ago when very few houses added extensions and outbuildings.  Now there are very few properties that do not have some form of extension or significant modification such as an outbuilding or conversion of the front garden to hard-standing.  We now have a concrete jungle and it is getting worse at an exponential rate.  We need changes to the building control regime to preserve the urban English environment.  In my view building regulations should be similar to traffic regulations.  You can still treat a speed limit as a guideline, but the police will see it as a rule when considering whether to take action.You won’t have heard of a Compliance Certificate because I invented it.  All developments should be compliant with the planning regulations in force at the time the building is inspected (not those in force at the time of development).  If the building is not in compliance, then it needs to be brought into compliance, and each inspection and each Compliance Certificate is a potential revenue item.  Developments could still be done with or without planning approval, but if done without approval the developer may find problems getting a Compliance Certificate particularly if regulations change making previously acceptable changes unacceptable.  So it would be in the interest of the developer to get the Compliance Certificate as soon as possible, and to get prior planning approval to improve the prospects of getting the Certificate.  Of course, when selling the property the conveyance procedure would include verification that any property has the appropriate Conformance Certificate(s).  There should be no four-year immunity clause to hide behind.Reports from the public of potential breaches of the development “rules”, should be seen by Planning Department as potential revenue generators.  To further increase departmental revenue Planning Officers should be sent out to audit developments throughout the borough on a street-by-street basis.  The potential revenue should enable significant reductions in council tax: perhaps its elimination!!  I’m not sure that the Council could make a statutory charge every time a complainant lodges an enforcement complaint that correctly points out that a development is in breach of the guidelines, but is then classed as  “unsubstantiated” on the basis of the subjective view of the Planning Officer that “no material harm is being caused” or “enforcement action is not considered expedient”.  Joe Public is not that simple minded.  The guidelines should become rules that cannot be overridden by any subjective opinion of a Planning Officer or for the administrative convenience of the Planning Department If you look at the issue from the other side of the table you should also be suggesting that, when a complainant lodges an enforcement complaint that turns out to be correct, there should be a statutory charge on the local council for failing to provide effective planning control.  It would be the same logic.  Of course the charge would have to be paid out of the salaries of the planning department staff not by the council tax payer!  It should also be accepted by the Planning Department that every breach of the planning guidelines causes material harm because it undermines the validity of the planning guidelines.You also suggest that complainants should have to check for themselves whether the development requires planning permission before the Council agree to utilise resources by visiting a site.  Joe Public now has sole responsibility for identifying breaches of planning control guidelines because the Council has decided that it will not monitor developments themselves.  The Council has delegated this task to Joe Public but without telling Joe Public that it is now its job, and without providing Joe Public with any training.  Did the Council realise the consequences of their actions when they “outsourced” this job?  Perhaps they thought that, since Joe Public has not been trained in planning control procedures, the problem of rogue developments had been kicked into the long grass – or at least the cost of dealing with rogue developments would not hit the Council’s budget.As for finding the suggestion that minutes of the team leaders meetings should be published is “interesting”, I am amazed that there can be any doubt that the minutes should be a matter of public record.  It cannot be in the public interest to keep the discussions secret.  Therein lies the basis of deep suspicion about the probity of some planning decisions.  It is in the interest of everyone, especially Planning Officers, that the minutes be published.  It would be a step in the right direction to at least keep a record of the team leader meetings!Adam, while I am sure that you can draw on your long career in local government to defend the current system, could I ask you to also apply that same experience to help to find a way of delivering a more effective system of planning control.  What we have at the moment can be seen to be less than adequate.

Nick Marbrow ● 5718d

That's helpful, thanks.

Phil Andrews ● 5719d

Phil, I completely agree, I wasn't linking the two sites directly, in a way just pointing out how I thought LBH Watch might learn from Hillingdon Watch's 'mistakes'.

Adam Beamish ● 5719d

Jim Lawes ● 5719d

AdamLBH Watch has no connection whatsoever with Hillingdon Watch, the similarity in name is as far as I am aware a complete coincidence, and I have no reason to believe that any of my LBH Watch colleagues even knew of its existence before I posted the URL on this forum today.I happened upon it by accident when googling LBH Watch to see whether there was any comment about the initiative appearing elsewhere on the web.So Adam, whilst your comments about Hillingdon Watch are helpful to the discussion it needs to be stressed that any shortcomings that operation may have cannot be used as a stick with which to beat LBH Watch.

Phil Andrews ● 5719d

Thanks Phil, didn't know that existed.  Worries me though that the only planning article I saw on that site was a rather OTT 'witch hunt' by a complainant who persistently refers to a building being illegal, when it isn't, and instead of the site taking a somewhat 'neutral' position they just happily link to all of the complainant's rambling even though much of it demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of planning law.  Of course I'd expect that from Joe Public, but if any site monitoring a local authority is going to have credibility, it needs to know the basics itself.

Adam Beamish ● 5719d

www.hillingdon-watch.org.uk

Phil Andrews ● 5719d

Ian - the Council who doesn't permit enforcement matters to be discussed in the public arena is Hillingdon, not Hounslow, so unless LBH Watch is going to alter it's focus to Hillingdon it is irrelevant in respect of what goes on at LB Hounslow !.Steve - important to note that this exemption applies only to planning enforcement matters, not planning applications.  Whilst I think there is a limit to how 'transparent' a Council can be, I do think it's odd that Hillingdon (and I'm not aware of any Council who refers its enforcement matters to a committee who follows the same practice) acts in this manner. 

Adam Beamish ● 5719d

"in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information."It should be reasonably easy for an applicant to gather support from the public (a few friends) and show that it is in the public interest to disclose the information. Would the Council waste time and money trying to gather evidence that there is 'public interest, in maintaining the exemption? Unless of course they are trying to hide something they don't want the public to know about!

Steve Taylor ● 5719d

What you've said just underlines the need for LBH Watch.

Ian Speed ● 5720d

Well Steve, the official line is this (cut and pasted from one Council's planning committee agenda) :Enforcement ReportBy virtue of paragraph(s) 6 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 as amended.Explanation of ReasonsBy Virtue of Paragraph 6Information which reveals that the authority proposes -to give under any enactment a notice under or by virtue of which requirements are imposed on a person, orto make an order or direction under any enactment,Condition:Information is exempt to the extent that, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.Personally I totally disagree with it and am only aware of this particular Council acting in this manner.  I think it's unlikely, but I often wonder if it's because I worked there for a short/unhappy period of time and from time to time afterwards pointed out to ex-colleagues who still worked there flaws in some enforcement reports/recommendations being made to committee, and very soon after the enforcement reports suddenly went from being discussed in public and published on the agenda to being discussed in private and the report not included on the public agenda for anyone to read...

Adam Beamish ● 5720d

"Some Councils take things to the other extreme and all of their enforcement decisions are made behind closed doors (even committee discussions relating to enforcement are done under Part II not for the public/press procedures). "This has surely got to be wrong? If its not a matter of national security all local government matters should be totally transparent and available to public scrutiny. Aren't these people Public Servants?

Steve Taylor ● 5721d

Nick,You talk about changing planning departments from a cost centre to a profit centre and then talk about removing immunity periods and charging for every 'certificate of compliance'.Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by a 'Certificate of Compliance' in respect of planning control, such a thing doesn't exist - a developer/owner can apply for a Certificate of Proposed/Existing Lawfulness in relation to a development or use, and has to pay an application fee to do so set by national government.As for removing immunity, how is that going to make a Council profit ? - bearing in mind that it isn't a criminal offence to breach planning control and anyone that does so is not required to submit a retrospective planning application (which if they did would generate an application fee to the Council).You appear to be taking a very slanted, complainant perspective rather than looking at the planning system as a whole, which certainly has its faults.  It has to work both ways.How about the Council make a statutory charge for every time a complainant lodges an enforcement complaint that turns out to be unsubstantiated ? - on the same basis I would always say a developer/owner should check for themselves whether their proposal requires permission before commencing work then you could argue complainants should also have to research the same regulations before the Council agree to utilise resources by visiting a site.  It's an interesting suggestion you make about minutes of delegated meetings.  Some Councils take things to the other extreme and all of their enforcement decisions are made behind closed doors (even committee discussions relating to enforcement are done under Part II not for the public/press procedures).

Adam Beamish ● 5721d

Adam,As you point out, eventually it often comes down to an internal meeting of team leaders where no minutes are taken, and the public is left to speculate on why a decision does not reflect the “rules”/guidelines.  No transparency.  If minutes were published we would have an insight into why.  There would be no need to send out individual letters – just publish the minutes.  It’s then up to Joe Public to decide whether to seek judicial review.  I don’t see any reason why every enforcement decision should not be made public.  Why should it be kept secret?  We need transparency.  As you point out, the resources to do the job properly do not exist as things stand.  Let’s abandon the pretence that Planning Control is done properly.  Change Planning Department from a cost centre to a profit centre.  Remove the four-year immunity.  Charge for every certificate of compliance.  LBH Watch can at least start the debate. 

Nick Marbrow ● 5722d

Phil,Yet more unwarranted assumptions from you.It is indeed natural that people who voted for parties that ended up without any councillors will not be confident that either of the two main parties will represent them and their concerns.  And I agree that it doesn't follow that the LBH Watch must be an ICG front group.  But I said earlier that it looks like that to me.  With no overt support from John Connelly's group or the Lib-Dems, and with prominent ICG members in key roles in LBH Watch, that is still my perception.  I accept that you want to broaden its base, and that is good.I am not discomfited by the emergence of a new residents' group, though I am not yet convinced that we need one, especially so soon after an election.  I do have concerns about the consistency of the story, e.g. "cross-party support" and "formed in the aftermath of a lost election" have been needlessly contentious issues.  But I'll wait and see how LBH Watch performs in practice before commenting further.Your last two paragraphs reflect your own view of the local election result rather than mine.

Richard Jennings ● 5722d

And there was me thinking you'd intervened on this part of the thread to distance yourself from the remarks of "B. Abbott", which most normal people would recognise have no place on a forum such as this.  But then again maybe you can't Vanessa?What do you say we start a thread to discuss your private life?  How much do you have in the bank?  Any medical conditions that you'd like to make us aware of?  How's your love life?I thought there were depths to which even you people wouldn't sink.  It seems I was wrong, but if you think this kind of thing will achieve anything other than to redouble my determination then even after all this time you don't know me very well.

Phil Andrews ● 5722d

Well, I have to admit Vanessa that there I times when I've wondered whether it's all worthwhile.  Then I see things like the "Abbott" post and I am reminded what it is what it is we are dealing with, and what it is we have been fighting against.  No comment from you on that one I note.Has it occurred to you that the ICG comprises people who care about the community and who, having suffered an election defeat, may have taken the view that there may be other, maybe better ways of making a useful contribution without going as far as standing in elections?  Are you so completely incapable of recognising the benefits to elected members of an engaged community that you must leap in instinctively, and so defensively, whenever an initiative of this kind rears its head?Or are your efforts to provoke the ICG back into an adversarial position part of some bizarre strategy that I lack the political acumen to comprehend?If so I must assume the dangers of shooting yourself in the foot are something you have given due consideration to.

Phil Andrews ● 5722d

Well, well, I've said it before and I'll say it again we truly are not worthy, we are in the presence of greatness, sainthood cannot be far off.'This is what one gets when one puts working for the community before oneself.' That sounds like Princess Anne addressing the press!A lot of us have 'worked for the community', a lot of people are doing exactly that now, we also had full time jobs too - it's known as earning a living, and we didn't send our children to independent schools either, that's known as cutting your coat according to the cloth. Here endeth the lesson.

Vanessa Smith ● 5722d

No - the fact is the elections were in May and this group has been formed after, I do not think this group is an ICG front but I do think there are some people having problems coming to terms with the result. What's inconsistent about that?

Vanessa Smith ● 5722d

They'll probably cotton to the fact that my soon to be ex-wife's new partner's daughter 'likes' the EDL on Facebook, and then link it with me...

Ian Speed ● 5723d

Welcome to the forum "B. Abbott", and may I be the first to congratulate you on such a constructive and helpful post?For the benefit of those not in the loop the point "B. Abbott" is attempting to make, the piece de resistance of one or other of my party political critics (which of the two groups he/she represents is not yet clear, but may become so if he/she hangs around) is that I have an Individual Voluntary Agreement (IVA) to repay a number of creditors, credit card companies, having like many others been hit by the recession.  This is what one gets when one puts working for the community before oneself.If "B. Abbott" is a nom de plume for somebody from the Labour side of things it is particularly amusing as they have been aware of the fact for several months, yet during the recent election campaign circulated a leaflet containing the deliberate lie that I own a holiday home in Portugal!  Their stated philosophy when indulging in this kind of thing is "You call it dishonesty, we call it politics", as articulated by Councillor Ruth Cadbury at a Borough Council meeting when defending the practice of lying to their voters on election leaflets during a debate a couple of years or so ago.I am assuming the contribution from "B. Abbott" is some kind of veiled threat that my personal financial problems will become the subject of public discussion if I do not desist from my work with LBH Watch.  It's nice to see the political establishment in Hounslow adopting the moral high ground as always, and I'm sure Richard, John and Vanessa will be encouraged by the emergence of a new ally of such integrity and fortitude to help them pursue their argument.

Phil Andrews ● 5723d

'London Borough of Hounslow Watch' is a good idea.. on the other hand 5 words is a bit too LONG.  Why not call it 'Independent Voluntary Association' (IVA)..  I'm sure Mr Andrews would agree its got a certain ring to it

B Abbott ● 5723d

RichardIt is natural and reasonable that many residents will feel the return to a two-party monopoly of political power in Hounslow, although both parties would appear to prefer that arrangement, has created a situation in which it will be more difficult to examine the workings of the bureaucracy and to hold it to account.  It does not in any way follow from that that LBH Watch must ipso facto be an ICG front group, unless it is being suggested that all activity outside of the Conservative and Labour parties is somehow regulated and managed by the ICG, a flattering but quite ludicrous and paranoid scenario.The last meeting of the new group, held on Monday, was attended by two Conservative councillors.  Presumably they too are part of this sinister conspiracy?I find it very telling Richard that the emergence of a residents' group with intentions to hold a Labour-controlled bureaucracy to account (although it being Labour-controlled is incidental) so obviously discomfits you.Is it the realisation that ICG members are still active and still wish to take part in local community work in spite of the election result that has flustered you so?If so I'm afraid that's what you get when you listen to David Giles.  By now I guess it has dawned upon you that an election, and four years of hard work, was casually thrown away on the back of a very serious miscalculation.

Phil Andrews ● 5723d

The initial announcement about LBH Watch implies that it was indeed formed in the aftermath of a lost election.  If you are now denying that, then it's you who are being inconsistent.Just to remind you, the announcement started as follows:Following the local elections at which all community and third party representation on Hounslow council was wiped out and replaced with a classic two party system only, a group of concerned residents have formed ...

Richard Jennings ● 5723d

Not at all Vanessa.  A few posts back you accepted that LBH Watch was not an ICG front.  Now you say it was formed in the aftermath of a lost election.  You need to be consistent.

Phil Andrews ● 5723d

No you're not - you're just being obtuse and sarcastic.

Vanessa Smith ● 5723d

Nick,As you're probably aware given my career background planning , and in particular planning enforcement, has a place close to my heart.Government Circular 10/97, entitled 'Enforcing Planning Control' states :'The power (in the amended section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 ("the 1990 Act")) to issue an enforcement notice is discretionary. A notice requires remedial steps to be taken within a specified time-limit. It should only be used where the LPA are satisfied that there has been a breach of planning control and it is expedient to issue a notice, having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations.'Within Planning Policy Guidance Note 18, also entitled Enforcing Planning Control, in respect to the general approach to enforcement, national government advises :'5. Nothing in this Note should be taken as condoning a wilful breach of planning law. LPAs have a general discretion to take enforcement action, when they regard it as expedient. They should be guided by the following considerations:-(1) Parliament has given LPAs the primary responsibility for taking whatever enforcement action may be necessary, in the public interest, in their administrative area (the private citizen cannot initiate planning enforcement action);(2) the Commissioner for Local Administration (the local ombudsman) has held, in a number of investigated cases, that there is "maladministration" if the authority fail to take effective enforcement action which was plainly necessary and has occasionally recommended a compensatory payment to the complainant for the consequent injustice;(3) in considering any enforcement action, the decisive issue for the LPA should be whether the breach of control would unacceptably affect public amenity or the existing use of land and buildings meriting protection in the public interest;(4) enforcement action should always be commensurate with the breach of planning control to which it relates (for example, it is usually inappropriate to take formal enforcement action against a trivial or technical breach of control which causes no harm to amenity in the localityof the site); and(5) where the LPA's initial attempt to persuade the owner or occupier of the site voluntarily to remedy the harmful effects of unauthorised development fails, negotiations should not be allowed to hamper or delay whatever formal enforcement action may be required to make the development acceptable on planning grounds, or to compel it to stop (LPAs should bear in mind the statutory time limits for taking enforcement action).'So that's what both national government advice (Circular 10/97, PPG18) and the planning legislation (T&CP Act) actually says.Your first paragraph strays on dangerous territory when it talks about residents looking for a reason why the 'rules' have been ignored.  It is a fundamental principle of the national planning legislation and associated guidance that the enforcement regime is not there to punish people for breaking the rules, e.g. a retrospective planning application should be determined in the same way as a planning application proposing development.Why the rules are ignored is not something Officers can answer, nor LBH Watch can have any input in/change, that is something you need to ask the developers who break planning control.  In my experience, many people foolishly rely on what a builder or a conservatory company tells them, rather than actually checking it out for themselves.  Others hold the view that their home and its curtilage is theirs and they can act as they please within it.  Some decide to take the risk and see if they get away with it.  Others get permission for one thing and then suddenly think they'll completely change the building during construction but don't think to inform the Council.I don't believe in this day and age anyone can suggest that Councils can do more to educate people, there's a plethora of information available on both Council and Government websites, there's Duty Planning Officers available for homeowners to go and see without an appointment to get planning advice on minor developments, and (at least certainly in my time in local government) I was always happy to discuss planning matters with the public, including articles in HM magazine and the local newspaper, and indeed often talking with David and Vivienne Blackett (a charming couple who I always felt I understood and vice versa) from your own Residents Association.  So I would suggest looking elsewhere than at Officers to find a reason why the rules are being ignored, maybe speak to the developers themselves ?.Apologies for being pedantic, but you make an erroneous reference to the 'impartial application of planning rules', I presume you mean policies within the development plan, as there are no 'rules' when it comes to deciding whether or not to enforce.The two phrases you quote which Officers use have their basis in the relevant legislation, there are the appropriate technical phrases.  Much as I was occasionally tempted, had I ever said "we're not taking enforcement action because the  extension is 2cms deeper than what it could be built without requiring planning permission and you really ought to stop wasting the Council's time and get a life"  I don't think that would have gone down too well !.Councils deal with hundreds, sometimes in excess of 1000, enforcement complaints every year.  Most Councils have delegated powers when it comes to exercising the discretion whether or not to take enforcement action.  Very few Councils however give this discretion to one Officer, I had that discretion at Harrow Council and it wasn't something I was comfortable with.  At Hounslow every time one of my staff wanted to close an enforcement case (where there was a breach) without taking action they'd have to write a report, I would then review that report and then twice a week I'd sit in a room for 2 hours with all of the other Team Leaders (5-6 people) and we'd make decisions on minor planning applications and enforcement matters.  We wouldn't always all agree, but we'd come to a consensus, and if it was agreed that it wasn't expedient to enforcement, then we'd close the case and advise both the developer and the complainant accordingly.As for explaining that to the public, that would involve a personalised letter to each and every complainant following that decision.  That just isn't feasible, no Council has (and certainly won't have as the 'cull' forced by the new government starts to hit) the resources to do that, and if people want a more detailed explanation they can always ring the Case Officer.It sounds to me as though ideally you'd like the scheme of delegation changed so that every enforcement decision is made in public - not something I'd support but regardless of that I'm not clear how LBH Watch is going to help achieve what you are looking for.

Adam Beamish ● 5723d

Adam,As a fully paid-up member of Joe Public, I am part of a very diverse group of people many of whom do understand that there is national legislation underpinning local government policies.  However decisions are often taken, particularly in respect of planning, based on subjective opinion.  The use of “no material harm is being caused” and “enforcement action is not considered expedient” leave the impression that decisions may be taken based on administrative convenience rather than impartial application of planning rules.  It is my experience that Officers generally do not feel it necessary to explain to the public why their subjective opinion is the only one that matters.  This leaves borough residents looking for a reason why the rules have been ignored.  What can we put this down to?Your interpretation of LBH Watch as "we think Officers are dodgy and we're out to get you" – is over the top.  Perhaps “we think Officers are not good at engaging with the public, and we would like to be treated like the customers that we are” might be more appropriate.I would not suggest that Officers are “blind, naive or out of touch”, but my experience is that they often lack “helicopter vision”, and are unwilling to look at the issue from the other side of the table.If transparency is to be the way forward for local government, then I think LBH has a long way to go.

Nick Marbrow ● 5723d

Did LBH Watch lose the local elections?  Confused.

Phil Andrews ● 5723d

"Those with a genuine desire to improve things for residents and to open up and democratise the process of local government will welcome the launch of this new initiative.  Those who believe residents should be seen and not heard and who want to preserve the old way of doing things irrespective of whether it serves the community (and forward-thinking elected members) or not will feel threatened by it"That's an oversimplification and also rather disingenuous. So what you are saying is - if you don't agree with me  then you automatically want to keep the local population in the dark and practice the dark arts of politics? I would have thought that it is self evident that anyone who stands for election - or at least the majority who do - believes that they can improve things locally and wish to work with their constituents to that end, as well as being an advocate for them when needed when the system gets in the way.Whether or not something 'serves the community' is debatable as we all have differing views on that sort of thing and what would be our own priorities. That doesn't necessarily make anyone who disagrees with you wrong, as I have said before pragmatism is often what is most important to a local politician. The decision making process does not afford the luxury of time to consult everybody about every decision, surely the purpose of elections is to mandate representatives to do this on your behalf? If you don't like what they do you have the right to kick them out, I can't see anything wrong with keeping a watching brief on things but it seems to me that there is a distinct blurring of the lines inherent in what you want from this.It would appear that it is the case some people are having a hard time coming to terms with losing out in the May elections and see this as a comfort blanket to aid withdrawal symptoms.

Vanessa Smith ● 5723d

"Your post focuses solely upon Councillors, the focus (admittedly not the sole focus) of LBH Watch (reading the first post of this thread) seems to be the conduct of Officers."Not entirely correct Adam.  The focus of LBH Watch is on the whole system and how it serves local people, or not as the case may be.  It is also on the culture that prevails at the Civic Centre.  Where possible LBH Watch endeavours to keep individual personalities out of the picture.Those with a genuine desire to improve things for residents and to open up and democratise the process of local government will welcome the launch of this new initiative.  Those who believe residents should be seen and not heard and who want to preserve the old way of doing things irrespective of whether it serves the community (and forward-thinking elected members) or not will feel threatened by it.  I think the debate on this thread has made that perfectly clear, and has given us an initial sense of who swings which way.

Phil Andrews ● 5723d

Jim,Your post focuses solely upon Councillors, the focus (admittedly not the sole focus) of LBH Watch (reading the first post of this thread) seems to be the conduct of Officers.As I said previously, all this talk about Officers obstructing Councillors etc, or more precisely a small group of Councillors belonging to one group/party, is something that I've never seen happen in reality.I still personally have serious reservations, and having seen it happen at other Councils with my own eyes I hope we're never going to embrace a culture where a Council officer is expected to do exactly what a Councillor wants and if they don't then they're for the chop, in the same way I wouldn't support a culture where Councillors are expected to rubber stamp whatever Officers tell them.

Adam Beamish ● 5723d

Thanks for your words of support Jim.  Although Des wasn't present on Monday he is indeed a major player in the new group.  The range of talent we have on board is impressive and, just as importantly, the initiative has already become a borough-wide operation.

Phil Andrews ● 5724d

Looking forward to seeing the Press Release and any data to be shown on a website.LBH Watch is a good idea in my view...but don't we already do that in a limited way via these Forums?!!We have one less local newsletter keeping watch following the demise of the Brentford,Chiswick and Isleworth Times..agreed..so perhaps there is a need to replace it..and be well informed critics from the touchline.I know that the Heston Residents Association (a highly respected and well established and organised group of over 500) were not too happy with the performances of the nine Labour Councillors across the swathes of Heston..and that's why they put up their own candidate in the recent election.One remembers the shinanigans at the Civic Centre when the Labour Party were previously in control..and one doesn't want to that disgraceful civic behavior..at ratepayers expense again. The "Letters to the Editor" press cuttings from earlier years make alarming reading! Some of those Councillors should have been banished..and some were..but perhaps not all!I'm impressed that Isleworthian Des Begley may be involved with the Group. He is a highly respected Auditor with Local Governmemt and English Heritage experience..and is a great debater. Having that Campion House "champion" on board too is also impressive.  They wouldn't perhaps have come forward unless they saw a need for their participation.

Jim Lawes ● 5724d

Fair dues, just two then.

Phil Andrews ● 5725d

'I don't think that your new outfit is an ICG front especially, I just wonder why on earth you don't let it go and move on, get a proper job and enjoy life.'  From my post 29 July.

Vanessa Smith ● 5725d

Vicky Pollard is at least consistent and has the intellect not to deny making statements that she'd consigned to writing just a day or two previously but, like you say - whatever.You'll be pleased to hear that tonight's LBH Watch meeting saw the group take a fantastic leap forward.  Several residents' groups were represented - TIS, Brentford Community Council, St. John's, ROWE, Heston Residents' Association, MRAG and Campion Concerns amongst them.  Two councillors also attended and made a good, helpful contribution, as did two attendees who are council officers in other boroughs and therefore able to give a very useful perspective.This is likely to be the last meeting held at a member's home as the group is simply becoming too large.A lot of good stuff was discussed and decisions taken but I'll leave that until the press statement is released.Not a bad start for an ICG front group, eh?  By my reckoning I'm owed at least three apologies on this thread.  Wonder if I'll receive any of them?

Phil Andrews ● 5726d

In the immortal words of Vicky Pollard - 'Yeh - whatever'.

Vanessa Smith ● 5726d

VanessaWhere did I mention offering anybody advice?You always seem to respond to the post you want to read rather than the one the preceding poster has actually made. Anyway, I'm glad you are not looking to quarrel.  This thread began in a very neutral way with some information about a new initiative, led quickly to a series of angry denouncements from a group of people from across the old political spectrum but all seemingly with either a political or a professional interest in its preservation, and progressed to an explanation of the rationale for LBH Watch which as we can all now see was quite different from the picture some tried to paint.As for me, I'm off to the meeting.  Will report back tonight or tomorrow.

Phil Andrews ● 5726d

Quarrels? I have merely stated a personal view - I don't care what you choose to do or why. You lost the election someone else won - simples. What makes you think they need the dubious benefit of your advice? I cannot deny any opportunity to anyone - if people desire to listen to you that is entirely up to them.

Vanessa Smith ● 5726d

"I don't care what games you want to play now, I dare say Hounslow will muddle through minus your wisdom, it'll be tough but I'm sure those elected will survive."It would've been nice for them though to feel they could survive for more than four years and be given a real chance to grow into their new roles and show us what they can do.  I am at a loss to understand why you appear so determined to deny them that opportunity by picking needless quarrels with people who have no desire to quarrel with you.

Phil Andrews ● 5726d

'I find Vanessa Smith's insinuation that residents should leave council work to the councillors and stick to watching the X Factor Xtra on ITV2 or somesuch appalling. Happily her Labour party colleague Jerry Folkson was willing to attend the first meeting and made some extremely useful and pertinent comments about the quality of officers' reports.'What gets me is the way you choose to interpret and read into comments, opinions that are simply not there to fit your version of events. Ian said that I had 'insinuated' things which I most certainly did not. If I had 'returned to the fold' then I would not be worried or ashamed about saying so, unfortunately for you I haven't and have no plans to do so. I do support the Labour party in the vast majority of things, I would rather chop my hands off than vote for the Tories, their mates, or the pathetic, weak, shameful Lib Dems. That has been the case ever since I was old enough to understand politics, the very worst of Labour Governments could never, ever, be as awful as what we have now, and even my sons, who were not impressed by the last Government, looked into the abyss in May and decided they could not do anything but support Labour. I don't care what games you want to play now, I dare say Hounslow will muddle through minus your wisdom, it'll be tough but I'm sure those elected will survive.

Vanessa Smith ● 5726d

Adam , like I said, involvement is not compulsory.

Ian Speed ● 5729d

Ian,By definition it involves me on both a personal level (as I'm both a resident of the Borough) and on a professional level (as a planning consultant).It worries me that in your post earlier today you grouped together 'expertise' and 'tales of woe' -  no criticism intended but what Joe Public often describes as a 'tale of woe' is in fact something that is based upon the confines of national legislation, but Joe Public doesn't have the expertise to know that.I'm all for the Council and external groups working together, I am happy to provide occasional planning advice to people via these forums and when I worked in local government was always happy to meet with Residents Associations etc, but my concern with an organisation like LBH Watch is that, if you read your opening post on this thread again, it basically says is "We think Officers are dodgy and we're out to get you".I've said it before and I'll say it again, maybe I'm completely blind/naive/out of touch, but I spent almost 10 years at 5 different Councils at a Senior level and I never witnessed any of this skullduggery going on, of course at times there were clashes between Officers and Members but that is only to be expected.

Adam Beamish ● 5729d

VanessaRobin Taylor mentioned in an earlier post, just prior to the election if memory serves, that you had "returned to the fold".Unless I missed it, you didn't contradict him.All references from myself to you being in the Labour Party were based on that comment.  Apologies if I was wrong.Nonetheless you have made your support for Labour abundantly clear in many posts, including on this thread.  Nothing wrong with that, but under the circumstances I don't think Ian's comment was unreasonable.  Maybe he could have said "Jerry Folkson, from the party you support", but the essence of the point would have been the same.What has happened here in my view is that you have articulated a fairly extreme opinion on (against) resident involvement which you have expressed numerous times in the past, but seem to be retreating from now that the case for LBH Watch is being made more lucidly and is generally being supported.

Phil Andrews ● 5729d

Once again you can't help lying Ian. If you can point out where I said any of the things you have mentioned, I will apologise. I simply did not say anything like it. Your inability to tell the truth and instead embellish things to spin them your way does not bode well for this new gang. Will you actually report the unvarnished truth or just tell people your own version of what you think was said, proposed or done? I do not know Jerry Folkson and anyway he cannot be a 'Labour party colleague' as I am not a member of any political party - I know that will put a spanner in your future postings and limit the untruths you can trot out.

Vanessa Smith ● 5729d

That'll be an excellent start!

Tony Wood ● 5730d

Tony , we are going to look at the full spectrum of council activities but we need people with expertise/tales of woe in other areas, eg we have heard from a guy called Ed Driscoll who knows about the dodgy business of removing disabled travel passes.

Ian Speed ● 5730d

Unusally for me I find myself wishing (with caution!)LBH Watch well. I hope that  they don't restrict their watch simply to planning matters but to the full spectrum of council activities.I'm afraid recent events in Parliament have shown  that those in power can't be trusted on an unchecked rein,I have no reason to believe that those in council are any different. I have witnessed at first hand some very dodgy "deals" at council meetings,not within LBH I hasten to add.So,if this isn't a front for the ICG and is genuinely Cross Party,it seems a good idea to me.

Tony Wood ● 5730d

Adam - do not worry yourself - involvement is not compulsory!Incidentally , my post yesterday did not make clear that Joe Bourke is from the Lib Dems and was recommended by Andrew Dakers.

Ian Speed ● 5730d

I'm not convinced personally with the notion of LBH Watch focusing upon planning matters.I know the Mogden argument will run and run, but, putting that issue to one side, what else is LBH Watch going to achieve planning wise ?.Decisions about planning applications are based upon development plan policies and all other material planning considerations.  Same applies for enforcement, although in addition enforcement action is discretionary and not mandatory.There isn't a third party right of appeal if an application gets approved which the third party objects to etc.  LBH Watch isn't going to change that.  Officers aren't going to make a different recommendation on an application or enforcement matter just because LBH Watch hold a strong view.The only 'problems' planning wise in recent years in Hounslow (and generally across the country) are a result of (1) ever reducing resources leading to delays, and (2) Members occasionally making 'questionable' decisions not wholly based upon planning policies or material considerations.If people are unhappy they can make a complaint to the Council, or to the Ombudsman, or to the Standards Board.I'm all for Residents Associations, I'm all for educating people about the planning system, but I'm not convinced this is the way to go about it.

Adam Beamish ● 5730d

Thanks for that Ian.  My dilemma was that I didn't know whether I was authorised to drop names so in effect I was fighting the naysayers with one arm tied behind my back.I hope LBH Watch's critics on here will now accept that they have been a tad hasty in their condemnations and will henceforth regard LBH Watch for what it actually is, irrespective of whether or not they approve in principle of residents being permitted to have an opinion on the way their own local authority is run.

Phil Andrews ● 5730d

The idea of LBH was suggested to me by Nick Marbrow of Heston Residents, an independent candidate in Heston East in May. I had not previously heard of Nick before the elections and he has had no previous connection with the ICG. I find Vanessa Smith's insinuation that residents should leave council work to the councillors and stick to watching the X Factor Xtra on ITV2 or somesuch appalling. Happily her Labour party colleague Jerry Folkson was willing to attend the first meeting and made some extremely useful and pertinent comments about the quality of officers' reports. Joe Bourke and Sheila O'Reilly of the Conservatives have either expressed an intention to come to a meeting or have a party representative attend.

Ian Speed ● 5730d

VanessaI'm glad to hear that you do see a role for civic societies and even independent groups or parties.  If you don't mind me saying so you often give a contrary impression.Yes, consultation is the norm on planning and parking issues.  But what happens when that consultation is inadequate, misleading or flawed?  It is the contention of LBH Watch that these processes are often not followed properly by the Lampton Road bureaucracy which is why it intends to build a case that it can demonstrate to elected members, to do with what they will.If you like this is another single issue that elected members probably do not have the time to concentrate on as thoroughly as they will need to if they are to tackle the deficiencies that exist within the system.  The arrogance of the Environment Department when confronted with even the most constructive suggestions for positive change is positively breathtaking, and I'd be surprised if that attitude has not continued into this new administration.I am not muddying the waters, it seems to me that you rail instinctively against anything that emerges from within the community and which operates beyond the watchful eye of your party colleagues.Why can you not see LBH Watch as a service rather than launching immediately into this Pavlovian Dog reaction?  Like The Isleworth Society, LBH Watch is not interested in political power, it does not threaten you or your party.  The ICG may do at some time in the future depending on how things develop, but if that happens we'll not be needing a front group to help that process along.

Phil Andrews ● 5730d

I don't think that you really believe I am not supportive of things like the Isleworth Society, most of these things are in being as they are concerned with single issues that they are passionate about and which a local authority would quite likely not have the resources to support. They do not, as far as I am aware, want to run anything, you, as usual, are just muddying the waters. I will criticise the local authority or anyone else for that matter if I feel I have real issues with them no matter what political party is in the majority, for the record I don't 'prefer' any political make up although I would hope to see a labour majority, I think that Independent parties do have a role in politics, but I fail to see where you imagine people want to be 'empowered', they were empowered by being able to vote that is where the real strength lies not in the (to me) loopy idealogy of 'community'. You also know full well that in the case of planning and CPZs and God alone what else that public consultation is  the norm in this borough at least, and long may it be so.

Vanessa Smith ● 5730d

"The whole ethos of LBH Watch has been misrepresented ever since I announced its formation.  Why would anybody want to do this?"Perhaps you should ask yourself that question.  The misrepresentation started with the announcement itself: the claims that the new group is "powerful" and has "cross-party support".  The former is not yet true and the latter has been shown to be untrue. If the announcement had had less spin, people would have been less inclined to speculate about hidden agendas.By the way, I am not "angry" about the local election result.  Disappointed, but not angry.

Richard Jennings ● 5730d

JohnIt's Chair is not a defeated ICG candidate, he was the ICG's election agent.  And I am not ICG leader.  Most of the "leading lights" at LBH Watch are indeed independent of the ICG.  The Chair, an ICG member, was elected by a group of people most of whom are not ICG members.On what grounds do you assume LBH Watch to be an ICG front?  Are you familiar with the issues it has been looking into, and the work it has been doing?  Why the sweeping assumptions?Why do you refer to criticising the new administration?  That is not the role of LBH Watch at all.  The group's brief is to look at the bureaucracy within the local authority and to offer a view as to where and how it could better serve residents and elected members.  It is a potential ally of the new administration and, like I say, I'd have welcomed the existence of such a group when the old administration was in office.The ICG has no need to create "front groups".  We are well known and established locally and can do nothing operating behind a front group that we couldn't do openly ourselves.  The whole ethos of LBH Watch has been misrepresented ever since I announced its formation.  Why would anybody want to do this?LBH Watch will indeed become a credible and powerful local organisation.  The calibre of the people involved ensures this.  If you are free on August 2nd John why not come along to the meeting?  This is a serious offer - you would be most welcome, I'm sure your contribution would be helpful and you will be able to see for yourself exactly the kind of people who are involved and the extent of its alleged connection to the ICG.Interested?

Phil Andrews ● 5730d

Phil, your appeal for credibility for your new front organisation would have more credibility if its chair was not a defeated ICG candidate and its promoter (yourself) was not ICG leader.Those of us who lost in the election in May are obviously entitled to criticise the new administration where we disagree with its actions. However, we should do so in our own name and not hide behind a body consisting of so-called "representatives of all parties".If the Chair and leading lights of LBH Watch were independent of the ICG it is possible such a body could become a credible and powerful local organisation.

John Connelly ● 5730d

I think that is where we will have to agree to disagree Vanessa.  I simply do not accept that the work of groups such as The Isleworth Society, Campion Concerns, Mogden Residents' Action Group and the various residents' associations should or even could be replaced by self-appointed "expert" politicians who, whilst they may have the talents required to fulfil their generic role, will usually lack both the specialist subject knowledge and the desire to concentrate their minds sufficiently on very localised but nonetheless important issues such as those that these groups address.The is no reason why those in the political arena, if they are honest and well-meaning, should fear the involvement of civic groups and the participation of residents.  I have always regarded Labour's apparent unwillingness to treat with such organisations as an indication of its institutional insecurity.  It is this assumption that The Party knows best and that our role as local people is just to keep quiet that has created the particular political situation that we have in our own little corner of the world.Yes, Labour won the 2010 local election and I accept that verdict.  However I am not, in the interests of some false humility, going to pretend that the result was not the product of the freak happenstance of a general election being held on the same day.  In effect those who are interested in local community issues (voters who ordinarily turn out for local elections) were outvoted by those who are not (voters who turned out solely because there was a general election).  I make no apology for saying that it is those who are interested in their neighbours and neighbourhoods that I have time for and, yes, I have no problem with forcing the vision of those who care on those who don't.I have heard you condemn Margaret Thatcher (rightly) for her remark that there is "no such thing as society".  Has it never occurred to you that the line you take, your dismissal of the notion of community and disdain for any form of interaction with it, is all but identical?You are quick enough to come onto this forum and complain when you feel the local authority is doing something it shouldn't, or not doing something it should.  I wish there were more.  But aren't you contradicting your own view that we should leave it all to the elected members and not interfere ourselves?  Or do you believe your political affiliation gives you a right to comment that you would deny to others?We now have, once again, a local authority comprising just two political groups, Labour and the Conservatives.  I've now doubt that is an arrangement you prefer.  But what happens when the bureaucracy fails in an area in which the opposition has no interest?  People have a right to know what is going on.  The fact that most will never have the time nor the inclination to ever want to exercise that right does not make it any less of a right.  People have a right to see plans, to consider such matters as whether they want a CPZ - or a new housing development - in their neighbourhood and to make appropriate representations.I have seen signs that at least some members of the new administration appreciate this simple fact.  There is no reason why LBH Watch shouldn't be able to work with such people - we are there to help, not to frustrate.

Phil Andrews ● 5730d

This is an absolute nonsense, people elect councillors to represent them, why then would they want to do the job themselves? For all your talk of 'empowering' residents they voted against it in droves. This smacks of trying to foist your version of 'community' on people whether they want it or not. People can still get good access to their councillors if the system isn't working as they'd like. In my experience, and it was something you poo-poohed when I mentioned it, officers can be obstructive, I think some of them, certainly not all, do not understand (or do not want to) the essential difference between an employed officer and an elected member. I lost count of the times I remarked to officers that they should put their heads over the parapet and stand for election when they were unresponsive or negative to something. Most were helpful and supportive but their were some who were a bloody nuisance and had an unfortunately perverse atiitude to members. I don't think that your new outfit is an ICG front especially, I just wonder why on earth you don't let it go and move on, get a proper job and enjoy life.  It's like all this 'big society' twaddle, people want services they pay for perfomed and delivered by the authortities responsible, the vast majority do not want to go to work all day then come home and patrol the streets, or run local facilities for free. Doing voluntary work is one thing, and many people perform valuable service this way, but to try and run the country on the cheap in this way is taking the p*** big time.

Vanessa Smith ● 5730d

SteveYou have hit the nail on the head.  Just what exactly do well-meaning people of any political persuasion have to fear from a group such as LBH Watch, the role of which is simply to identify areas of underperformance from a user's perspective and bring them to the attention of the powers that be so that they might be rectified?As a member of the administration prior to May 2010 I would have welcomed the formation of a group of this nature at the time.  I would have considered it an ally in my efforts to help bring about accountability.  Personally I find the mentality of people who don't want to know where things are going wrong hard to fathom.When Chief Officers work to their own agenda this undermines those in power more than it undermines anybody else.  A forward-looking administration with confidence in itself would take advantage of LBH Watch and actively encourage participation in its work.  I hope Vanessa's comments in particular are not indicative of a re-emergence of the insecurities of old.

Phil Andrews ● 5730d

LOL, the auld alliance rears its head.  If people don't want us they can have the Tories, that way at least those damn residents don't get to pose their noses in.  For all your professed dislike of the Tories Vanessa it isn't difficult to recognise the main object of your contempt. And Richard, why would the ICG be wanting to "relaunch" itself?  It was never unlaunched to begin with.  We lost an election, other than that eveything remains the same.Yours strike me as the words of somebody who assumed we would just disappear and has now realised that is not the case at all.  Think about it, four years casually thrown away on the back of an assumption based on nothing but wishful thinking.  It is easy to see why you are angry.But for all yours and Vanessa's insinuations LBH Watch, far from being any kind of ICG front, actually has its roots in the previous administration when a policy of systematic obstruction from Chief Officers first became evident.  I am at a loss to understand why a generic distrust of some aspects of the culture at Lampton Road has been taken by both of you as an attack on the elected administration.  Unless, of course, it is being suggested that the lack of co-operation by officers with ICG councillors during the last year or so of the previous administration was actually being driven by the then political leadership of the council, in which case I couldn't possibly comment.

Phil Andrews ● 5730d

Richard - At least you've seen through the fog of words, I suspect like many of us you think this outfit is made up of has-beens and wannabees. I can't begin to count how many times any criticism of the last administration resulted in accusations of bitterness, personal failure etc. You are right in that we've only just had elections so presumably people made a choice that they were happy with, when it comes down to it if this council get it wrong the same fate will await them, and let's face it when people get the hump with council services they are hardly backwards in coming forwards and kicking up a stink. We hardly need another group of people who, let's be honest, aren't sympathetic to the new council's politics, to point any problems or shortcomings out. I think the majority of borough residents are more than capable of doing this themselves. It is up to the Tory party on the council to provide an effective opposition.

Vanessa Smith ● 5731d

"wouldn't you agree that LBH Watch is a good thing for residents?"I don't know. It might be.  But we had an election only a few months ago, and we elected the councillors whose job it is to represent us.  Why has this democratic process given rise to so much concern that a separate organisation must be set up by the people who lost the election?  It looks to me like an attempt by the ICG to relaunch itself.

Richard Jennings ● 5731d

But Richard, wouldn't you agree that LBH Watch is a good thing for residents?

Steve Taylor ● 5731d

Thanks, Phil.  Yes, unfortunately it does clarify things.  It clarifies that the description of LBH Watch as having "cross-party support" is downright misleading if all that you mean is merely that the participants happen to include a few members or supporters of all the parties.  "Cross-party support" should mean either that the parties have expressed their support, or that there is at least some evidence of support from their members generally.  But evidently you haven't even been endorsed by the Lib-Dems who were the main party that lost all its council seats in May.I can understand that the parties and groups that lost out in May want to be able to rebuild their support over the next four years, and there's nothing wrong with that.  But we could do without the misleading spin.

Richard Jennings ● 5731d

Members or supporters of all the main political parties are represented on the body as it currently exists.Certainly I can think of at least one member of the Liberal Democrats and one member of the Labour Party, and I know at least two of the participants are Conservative supporters but I couldn't say whether or not they are paid-up members.  I also believe Conservative councillors in Osterley are aware of the new group and have been kept posted regarding aspects of its work.For clarification, by "cross party" it is meant that all the major political viewpoints are represented.  Neither Ian nor I mean to imply that the group has the official endorsement of any of the organisations themselves.In any event the essential point of the reference was to emphasise that it is not the purpose of the new group to pursue any specific party political agenda.  Recognition of an appropriate relationship between members and officers should benefit councillors of all persuasions, and thereby their constituents.Hope this clarifies things.

Phil Andrews ● 5731d

"Delivering its launch statement, LBH Watch Chair Ian Speed emphasised that the new body enjoyed cross-party support"Please explain which parties have said they will support LBH Watch.

Richard Jennings ● 5731d