Forum Topic

A rather 'lopsided' post don't you think Thomas ?.  Anyone would think, judging by your post, that's the planning regime is going to become an open invite for developers to do whatever they please...I'm rather cynical about the various facets of the emerging Localism Bill, but certainly not in the same way that you appear to be.In respect of your specific points :1) a persumption in favour of development - what's wrong with that ?.  Why should applicants spend thousands of pounds submitting planning applications which aren't always given proper consideration by LPA's ? (because the resources aren't available to LPA's).  To give you a 'live' example, one of the many applications I submit is currently under 3 weeks away from the date it should be determined.  The Case Officer hasn't even looked at it yet (in their own words).  Basically an admin officer will have sent out the computer generated letters to third parties inviting them to make representations, then passed the file to the planning officer, who'll have put it on a shelf in chronological order, to look at probably afew days before the statutory decision date, because in the meantime the officer is busy with the applications who have an earlier statutory decision date.  Is it likely therefore that every decision made by the LPA is a properly considered, fully informed judgement ?.  At least if there's a presumption in favour of development the onus is more on the LPA to properly assess proposals to be able to demonstrate what's wrong with them.2) possible relaxation of controls over change of use of vacant offices into residential - firstly it's only a possible change (results of review due in Dec 2011), and secondly even if it is introduced there will be an detailed set of criteria and tolerances/circumstances which any such change of use will have to satisfy...it won't be a case of anyone with an empty office building can convert it to 10 flats just like that.3) 'Empowering local communities' - I've never hidden my disdain for this whole community empowerment notion, because in reality it's just hollow vote-winning talk.  People talk excitely about producing their own development plans etc, but fail to realise such plans must be in general conformity with national/regional/local planning policies and guidance (which usually many people don't agree with).  I still firmly believe (based on my own experiences over the years) that all that will happen is the rich/affluent members of the community will be the ones that have the biggest influence, and thus I am not convinced that any such neighbourhood plans will necessarily be representative of the wishes/desires/needs of the whole community.  So in a way we appear to have the same view on this, it's just that you refer to the involvement of big businesses, whereas I refer to the involvement of the rich/affluent members of the community.

Adam Beamish ● 5424d

I'm working away from Brentford and have just heard this. I started my first business on this easte and could not do it now. 24 jobs all local which won't happen if I tried it again. Too expensive and too few sites left. I would have to go out to Bracknell or north of London where it is cheaper and easier to find low cost sites.  Most of us don't like industry amidst residential areas but this is industrial Brentford and with transport and future scarce resources, the future will require plenty of local brownfield sites for small non polluting industries.I've noticed several people (usually from outside the area) levelling people as "Nimbys" as though it was a racist or sexist word and thus branding 'Nimbys as such.Nimby is an american abbreviation for Not In My Back Yard.  Nothing more than that. and if the established community feel strongly enough that this is not what they want in in their 'back yard' then what is wrong with that.This should not be confused with snobbery or those very wealthy wanting to hog their surroundings for their own satisfaction.So on this be a Nimby and proud!This is an ordinary mixed residential district with ordinary people who are more than aware of the overcrowding and lack of resources to cope with the influx and the bad effect it has on the existing community.If everything else was put in to alleviate the pressure, Extra schools, medical facilities, roads, car parks, parks and their facilities leisure facilities and so on then it might be good, but even under section 106 what have we had? A few lamp posts, some not too nice 'affordable' housing and a station and an excellent fast train service that was cut at the first opportunity. There comes a point that enough has to be enough, you can only pour so much into a cup of tea, then it spills into the saucer and the biscuits get soggy.

Anthony Waller ● 5430d

So bit by bit we are losing small business units. Commerce road is no longer for it's name - commerce.We cannot all work for GSK or at TVU or whatever it's called this month!It should be noted that several more recent local hi- rise developments have proved unsuitable for families and most are let.  No community has developed as so many are short term company placements and, eye raisingly, more than a few are rented pads for mistresses of wealthy city men - With a few superinjunctions too, I hear!That aside, a town cannot function without space for businesses of all sizes and variety. Brentford is an industrial town still with the infrastructure for such.Whilst industry has evolved, the space is here, the use may change.We cannot keep allowing developers to push for fast buck inferior dwellings dressed up to look smart simply to make money, without full consideration for what to do for the quality of life for all. Schools, health, sewerage, water, and all other services are stretched to the limit already. Small older properties are way above their true values because they are still better to live in than much of the new stock. Try living in the riverside flats where you can hear the activities of not just your neighbours, but their neighbours!!THe very most the Reynard site should be is a housing development mirroring the houses in the vicinity - ordinary Family houses 2, 3 & 4 bed with no more than 3 floors, gardens and adequate parking. Good for the district, good for those who will live there but not good for the greedy profit ridden developers who no doubt have already been greasing the palms of the usual suspects.

Michael Brandt ● 5436d