Forum Topic

Depends what road you are in. Only some streets were given a consultation and voted on it by response. But other streets were left out and not consulted.The problem is that those streets would be immediately outside the zone and would be seriously impacted by a CPZ.The original (and unsatisfactory plan) brought about by a previous councillor the late Val Lamey) was for the whole block Ealing road -Railway - Half Acre/Windmill Rd, High St as the boundary. But as someone else has mentioned it had so many additional restrictions as well as long hours it reduced parking by well over 120 spaces throughout and permits would exceed even that lost 120 by around 50. Also it was a daytime scheme till 7.30 pm and did not solve the problem which is (with the exception of around the station) one of a residents nature and at night.(The football parking is a matchday issue and solutions exist in Fulham and Wembley and a simple solution could exist here with a matchday CPZ or a return to the residents token system operated I think by the club and the police in the 1980's)Thus a station zone was implemented only.The next proposals are a rehash of the original plan and still have a plethora of additional yellow lines and restrictions reducing spaces significantly and still not solving the night problem.Consequently, residents of the streets just outside the proposed zone objected.A simple 1 hour a day scheme would probably be enough to deter long term commuters and those who leave a car and go to the airport.But keeping amenities like the garages is also vital for the night problem.As a footnote. Permits in Ealing have tripled in one year and residents are meeting shortly to discuss scrapping some zones, as they are entitles do do so under the original partnership CPZs. This is because the council has made visitor permits unnaffordable to pensioners and non car owners and many others as well as breaking a written guarantee on permit costs.

Anthony Waller ● 4933d

There was no apathy. People said No.The simple fact is with the CPZ as proposed there would be 35%+ more permits than parking space available.That's because a whole lot of additional restrictions were included in the specifications laid down by LBH.Secondly, a choice was not offered like for example the hour in the morning hour in the afternoon scheme as in Northfields.The hard fact is that is is a problem here at night and that is down almost entirely to residents. So you will be paying £90 a year for less chance of a space than you have now.I do though agree with Keeping the corners clear. It is common sense really but it has become a last resort parking space for those who come home form work very late. I do and have drive round for up to 40 minutes with a fully laden car and not found a space. Or at least a safe space or in reasonable walking distance. And a few times I have parked over a corner but as tight as possible to minimise an obstruction. And I get up early to move it.But I have had, on several occasions, to even drive up to Ealing and sleep in my office.And after a 16 hour day that's not a bundle of laughs.Residents fought hard to keep the restrictions that are currently being implemented to the minimum. In Grosvenor road alone some 14 spaces were to be losr with yellow lines for turning circles and extra long corner restrictions which are simply unnecessary.  They got a compromise. Just the corners. That's hardly apathy.It's why the lock up garages are so important and why the spaces must be protected and eventually improved for more residents to benefit.

Michael Brandt ● 4933d

Hmmm  That is very interesting Anthony.....This is what it says in minutes of council meeting ???Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee – 17 November 2011BROOK ROAD SOUTH AREA, BRENTFORD - OBJECTIONS TO PROPOSED 'AT ANYTIME' WAITING RESTRICTIONSReport by: Director of EnvironmentDue to the high number of objections to the proposed waiting restrictions, the FireService were requested to carry out a test run to determine if they experienced anyobstructions when accessing the roads off Brook Road South. The Fire Service wereasked to visit New Road, Hamilton Road, Clifden Road, Braemar Road, MafekingAvenue and Grosvenor Road. During the test run, the fire service confirmed that, “oneof our appliances carried out a test run yesterday in this area. We found the junctionbetween New Road and Brook Road South impassable due to the parking restrictionscurrently in place. Access into Brook Road from Braemar Road was extremely tight asthe appliance could not turn the corner without coming into contact with a parkedvehicle.Whilst I have sympathy for the local residents with regard to this issue I must requestthat your team take sufficient action to enable us to reach any type of emergency in theBrook Road South area with the minimum of delay”.2.8 Furthermore, the Fire Service admitted that they did not attempt to access ClifdenRoad, Mafeking Avenue or Grosvenor Road as they could visually see that there wouldbe issues manoeuvring the vehicle into these roads.2.9 On the basis of the Fire Service test run, it is recommended that the objections to theproposed waiting restrictions are overruled and the yellow lines are implemented

Claire de ST Croix ● 4935d

I'm currently looking into the history of the two sites and did spend a fair bit of monday in the library archive.Both sites were bomb damaged sites but were not all dwellings, one was a stables or yard.A V1 fell on several houses in Lateward road and incenaries in Brook road, Grosvenor road and Lateward road and Albany road.In the 1950's Brentford and Chiswick decided on building council houses on several sites and designated others for amenity use.Thus in 1962 the flats were built in Lateward road and the garages made available to local residents primarily self employed tradesmen.Interesting fact emerged that in 1965 at the instigation of Hounslow Borough Brentford has already over 50% tenants paying rent to councils and almost all the remainder to multiple landlords and corporation tenancys like the Metropolitan Water Board, North Thames Gas, the dock companies and a few others including the Church of England.Consequently well over 50% of Brentford is still social housing either Hounslow or housing associations and a very large proportion of private new builds are leased on buy to lets and subsequently rented to ...London Boroughs - not just Hounslow. So there is already a serious imbalance which cannot balance the books for LBH or council taxpayers .There are several sites dotted around Brentford that are designated for amenity use which could be gardens, garages or workshops.Most seem to be garages as they generate an income.In Brook road the site is also over the real Brook and is an access point for the Metropolitan water board to access the ducting should the brook become more active. Maybe someone knows the precise location of the brook which was routed into a man made duct in 1894Cannot understand why on earth anyone elected locally would not want to protect an amenity site which is designated for the benefit of local residents.It's use can be improved, secure bicycle lockers, a space for a car share, a lot could be done with the loss of just one garage. But the justification for social housing really does seem rather perverse in the face of the social facts of this town and I think we all know that these homes will be sold within a very short time.

Michael Brandt ● 4937d

I wonder?If this part of the conservation area is garaging, then should that not be conserved as the use of the land, whether developed/modernised or not?If the community centre in St Johns road Isleworth were 'conserved' as a community centre then would it not be 'undesirable' for quick fix development and 'quick money' at the expense of the community which has by tradition, formed around it?Is a Conservation area and a Community centre a nod to the centre of the communnity which forms around it?I also wonder what the history of the land is - why is there a gap in the Victorian houses either side of the garage area?  Was it originally a park and an open space and they could only get planning for garages as low level buildings with play space outside.  When the garages were first built it was probably at the time when people always put their cars away in the garage, leaving the street area tidy.  Was it open due to bomb damage during the war?  Are there any land use restrictions on it?  I understand anyone can downlead the land covenants and titles deeds for a few £'s, on line.As far as Cllr Matt Harmers contribution goes - it is lovely to see him posting an opinion on the forum.  Cllrs appear to steer clear of doing so because of getting 'tied up in knotts' with the responses they are then open to.  I read it as he is very interested in the same way as other posters, for his own sake as a local resident, but having a dilemma about having to find ways to releaase money for projects that don't have central funding.  Well, thats an opinion and several wonders for you!  :-)

Sarah Felstead ● 4938d

This 'affordable housing' simply doesn't wash. 2 dwellings with off street parking? For less than any other house in the area?  Pull the other one.  Affordable to whom?  A journalist on £23,000p/a, a tube driver on £48,000 pa or a management consultant on £130k? utter nonsense. 25-30 years ago this very neighbourhood was 'affordable housing'.  It was where you lived if you could not afford a terraced house in Ealing or Chiswick or larger houses in Osterley. It was where you ended up if you wanted to stay within a few miles of where you grew up but had a lower income.Much of it was run down and neglected by it's owner landlords - Family trusts etc. who only started selling when the law started to enforce habitable standards of repair.It's the efforts of those who bought here that turned the area around and the fact that it was a left out of everything backwater and a dumping ground for Hounslow boroughs problem family that left it with cheap affordable housing.My first home was in Osterley. Tiny , but in a nice well kept neighbourhood.It cost more than the house I now live in in Brentford. I could have bought 2 houses in the street I now live in here for the cost of the Osterley place but then this bit was run down and facing an uncertain future. Most houses had only coal fires, no bathrooms, no insulation, no double glazing, dry rot, damp and this was less than a generation ago.Half of this town is Council and ex council stock. The other half is largely old stock renovated by residents and helped a bit with various grants. But a lot of it was 'affordable housing'. It was where you started or where you headed if you could afford nothing else.Someone has been brave enough to to point out that the real reason there is an imbalance is the excessive amount of people who have been housed without putting into the pot. Charitable, Humanitarian but in the end excessive.The policy is wrong and as someone else quite correctly pointed out, this town has a lot of dereliction. The council should look to use that first and not try to remove facilities which are quite obviously there for good reason.You cannot get a quart into a pint glass and this is exactly what is being proposed.There are now already enough problems. This really will tip the balance.Like most I have a car, but I use it only when necessary.Often costing me dear in time lost.  It has to be parked somewhere.

Michael Brandt ● 4942d

A rant indeed !.I suspect the sole reason Cllr. Harmer mentioned that he is a Councillor is because there's a fairly strong possibility that the application may be referred to the local area committee (which he sits on) for comment.  If he didn't say he was a Councillor and you didn't know he was, and then went along to the committee and found out he was a Councillor, you'd be ranting about how he hadn't said he was a Councillor when posting on here ! - if there's one thing I learnt when I was a Council Officer it was that no matter how much you try to do the right thing, someone will always criticise !.I think the affordable homes 'argument' has been adequately covered in the national media - there can be no doubt that there has been a massive under-provision of affordable housing, and the old 50% split required by policy between market and affordable housing never materialised in reality.Regarding the comments about GWQ, I haven't been there myself but I live in a development where around 20% of the units are non-market housing.  95% of the time I've lived here (9.5 years now) there's been no issues or differences between the market housing occupiers and the non-market occupiers.  I hear stories that inside it is rather grotty due to lack of care by the residents etc, but externally no-one visiting here would know the difference - given I face the non-market block I wouldn't still be here if there were problems.  I'll openly admit to an extent I sometimes look down my nose at some of the non-market occupiers, like the woman who seemingly never goes out and spends most of the day stood on her balcony with a fag in one hand and a phone in the other, but as a generalisation I think the perception of 'affordable housing' is far removed from reality.I drive, I cycle, I walk, I run, I use public transport.  I drive to work every day because I'm regularly having to visit sites and clients anywhere in the South East.  However, I've reached the stage where I'm now going to run either to or from work (and get the bus for the other leg of the journey) because it's got to the stage where it takes me 40-50 minutes most mornings to drive under 6 miles and I'd rather use that time to keep in shape and mentally happy then getting stressed.  We have to get away from our love of our cars.  We shouldn't expect parking space on our streets as a right.  God knows how you'd enforce it, but I'd ban any able bodied parent or child living with 2 miles of a school from using a private car to travel to/from school, and the same for any employees living with 2 miles of their place of work.  That's me ranting, but it infuriates me that there's such a culture in this country where Mummy drives one child a mile to school in their BMW/Audi/Merc/4x4.Back to the planning point, as I keep stressing, national planning policy is very much driven towards minimum parking provision, not maximum. 

Adam Beamish ● 4942d

I'm a resident living close to both the garages in Brook road and Lateward road.I'm sorry but for once I cannot agree with Matt Harmer,or the council line it is plain wrong.These garages or lock-ups are not cheap unless you are a council tenant whereby you get a substantial discount.They do not have to contain cars, they can garage bikes (of pedal and motorised variety), trailers. or sports equipment or suchlike.Rentable garages in a dense victorian residential area are as valuable an amenity as a kids playground or a dog walking area in a park.They serve a purpose that is important. If it were not so, there would not be an 8 to 9 year waiting list in this vicinity.This town is littered with dereliction and yet the council wants to build dwellings on sites that are in use and earning revenue. Sites that were designated for amenity use a long time ago when it was becoming apparent that small streets like these would not be able to accommodate cars. An era when at least cash strapped councils had a bit of foresight and initiative for it's local residents.There is a lot of affordable housing in Brentford, much owned by the council. A lot of it is not nice. A lot of it has been used to house families who have brought nothing but fear and misery to many unfortunate enough to become their neighbours.There are plenty of sites to develop and plenty of sites with planning applications. Why are they not refused until enough affordable housing is included?Like the Cliftden Road swimming pool, sold off on the quiet, a library in peril, diminishing parking, and everything else, this is the thin end of the wedge.It is obvious to all that live here whatever their politics, that the district is at capacity and without amenities of all sorts the place declines from being OK to rubbish.I could go on but I'll save it for our objections.

Anthony Waller ● 4943d

Interesting thread. Most of you won't agree but here's my view (for those that don't know, I'm a ward councillor, in case you're wondering why what I think matters in the slightest).One of the council priorities is the delivery of affordable housing. It may be that developing some of the garages into residential accommodation assists in this aim, either by directly delivering affordable housing directly on the garage sites or by creating funds to achieve this elsewhere in the borough. With a cut in the funding available for affordable housing, we have to make sure we are using all our resources as efficiently as possible. Whilst we understand that people will be unhappy about losing garages  we have some difficult choices to make. The Council needs to decide priorities and, for me, improving housing in the borough takes precedence over parking.I should add that, in my experience, not all the garages have cars in them, many are (very cheap) storage units. I should also add that I am not some virulent anti-motorist; my car is parked about five minutes walk away, a distance that may well increase if the garages are removed. More importantly, nothing is decided for certain. It may be that the economics of the idea doesn't work out to provide value for council tax payers. The first step is to see if permission can be gained - that doesn't mean for sure that anything else will happen.I know that many won't agree with me, or the proposals. You should object. The garages are owned by the Council but that doesn't mean to say that the application will be approved. Two weeks ago, a council application in Feltham wasn't approved by the council's planning committee, who thought that the application wasn't in residents' best interests.So, sorry not to agree with objections but I think it's right that you know my position.Matt

Matt Harmer ● 4943d

The Conservation Area status, in terms of publicising the proposal, only adds the statutory requirement for the application to be advertised in a local newspaper.Regarding a lack of awareness amongst residents, looking on the Council's website the application was only submitted on 16th January.  How did you find out about the application ? - by notification letter from the Council or by other means ?.  Compared to most Councils, Hounslow is performing well if it is validating applications and getting neighbour notification letters sent out so soon after an application is received.  Perhaps other neighbours haven't seen the letters yet or, as often happens, people are quick to bin the standard notification letters without actually digesting what the letter is about.As for reletting the garages, from a business perspective if  the Council is going to be better off financially in the short term (and I have no idea if this is the case) by selling the garages and developing the land, then that's the Council's right if the proposal is acceptable in planning terms.  The legal position is very clear - an application submitted by the Council relating to its own land can't be treated differently to how it might be if the landowner wasn't the Council.Sorry to be so blunt, but if it's a choice between keeping afew garages or the Council using the financial benefit resulting from such a development to contribute towards making sufficient savings to not have to raise my Council Tax, then it's goodbye garages...

Adam Beamish ● 4944d