Forum Topic

Yet more parking woe due to proposed demolition of five garages on Lateward road

The council don't seem to be communicating this proactively - I only found out through word of mouth. If you have a car and park it in or around Lateward road, Brook Road South or streets nearby, this will affect YOU. Parking is bad enough locally and getting rid of long standing parking facilities will make things intolerable.http://planning2.hounslow.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00310750.pdf

Rod de St Croix ● 5397d29 Comments

It's not the parking, it's the removal of an amenity that facilitates an area that has no alternatives.It is not a Brownfield site and the supporting statement on the application is wholly innaccurate.It also claims that Hounslow council has carried out a 'parking analysis" yet this data is not available. Probably the same as the ghost fire appliance that tested all the corner junctions and yet was not witnessed by a mortal soul.It seems incredulous that any parking analysis could deem it Ok for a further 11 vehicles to be displaced into streets that are about to lose 40 spaces.As for social rent. A two bedroom property, brand new with garden and 2 parking spaces?  That is in excess of £1600 pcm so whom will be footing that rent? Taxpayers by any chance?Utter nonsense, Hounslow need to get real and develop disused and derelict sites.Why not a new simple 2 tier car park and garages in Charlton house and Build 8 homes along Albany road?Answer: no profit to be had as they will back on to a council estate.Hypocrisy.

Michael Brandt ● 5395d

I understand that local councillors are all for this. Clearly they either have driveways or somewhere to park or houses big enough to get bikes into.What I really do not understand is this myth of social housing. Brentford has more social housing than almost any other West London district in fact well over half of residences are council or housing association.This smells more than a bit fishy. A 4 bed house in a street made up of 2 bed houses?  Plus 2 other houses and all with private parking?That makes property of a far higher value than those surrounding.To be rented socially?  At what rent? Who will be ultimately picking up the bill?The vast majority of residents here are not wealthy, they have worked damned hard to but here and make a lot of sacrifices to achieve it and it is their efforts and money that has turned this area around from near slums just 30 years ago.Even Corals probably won't take a bet on what is really going on, these developments will be sold in no time at all for a big profit carved up no doubt between the developers and this rather secretive council.Shame on our usually erstwhile councillors for even considering supporting this. Absolutely disgraceful. These sites are quite rightly amenities that could be made better for a wider use for the benefit of the local existing inhabitants who just seem to be dumped on all the time.It's the same spite that residents of Chiswick have been tarred with. The assumption that if you are not a council tenant or on benefits then you must be wealthy.

Anthony Waller ● 5393d

I only just noticed that the Sustainable Development Committee was due to hear this much-protested application yesterday. Did you - or anyone else here - go along to listen, and is there any news?

Bryan Betts ● 5331d

From what I hear, it was a shambolic stitch up with no residents concerns being addressed, and council officers feeding the councillors with a load of unsound guff.

Michael Brandt ● 5331d

I do hope some residents went as I am far away at the moment.But my council contact tells me it was a complete stitch up and at the centre of it two local councilors.Hopefully someone can tell us more.

Anthony Waller ● 5330d

Can the Councillors that voted for this tell us in plain language why they approve and what they are going to do to replace what is being lost? If the property is to be sold privately can the Councillors confirm that the proceeds will be reinvested wholly in Brentford and not somewhere else?

Rod de St Croix ● 5330d

Can the councillors and officers also reveal what links they have with the chosen developer?Whom approached the developer and how?I think voters and residents would be most interested and rather surprised.

Anthony Waller ● 5330d

Again, all word of mouth but rumour has it that the 2 councillors involved have been after this for a while now. 1 is a novice councillor but has been given a rather important lead responsibility and the other may have a very vested interest given his day job so it would be nice if they could put these rumours to bed.It is also widely expected that the council will build the properties and then immediately sell them on.

Claire Peleschka ● 5330d

The committee reports are now up on the council website. All the objections were dismissed of course, complete with a snide aside pointing out that although "on-street parking levels are high", the area is "not within a Controlled Parking Zone as the results of a recent consultation exercise indicated that the majority of residents did not support such a scheme at this time." In other words, expect another CPZ proposal once these houses are up...On the usage of the garages, the Lateward Rd report claims only one garage is currently rent out. True? The Brook Rd S admits that all 11 are rented, but says the developers "would endeavour to find alternative garages for existing users within close proximity to the site", and "Evidence has been submitted by the applicants of 18 garages available at Mercury House in Windmill Road, 10 garages available in Brentside off Somerset Road and 11 garages available in Green Dragon Lane." I guess Somerset Rd is not that far away, but has whoever thinks the other two are "close" ever visited the area?!?

Bryan Betts ● 5328d

For the sake of clarity, the Officer's committee report, and the agenda it forms part of, was published several days before the committee meeting in accordance with the normal procedures of both Hounslow and all other Councils.No personal or professional interest in this matter at all but it always infuriates me when residents throw about words such as corrupt etc. just because they didn't get what they wanted, rather than having an appreciation of the fact that the content of the report and the responses from statutory consultees is largely based upon professional expertise in specialist areas.  Yes I'm the first to acknowledge that some aspects of town planning are subjective, but many aspects are not, and whilst I always appreciate that the average Joe Bloggs isn't an expert on planning policy, it's simply 'nasty' for that ignorance to be turned into allegations about dodgy dealings.Do you seriously think that any Council Officer is going to risk his or her career just to recommend approval of small housing scheme ?.  In the 15 years I've worked in planning on all sides of the fence I have never come across any 'dodgy dealings' from Council Officers, home owners or developers.You don't like the decision, I appreciate that, but for god sake get real and stop talking such nonsense.

Adam Beamish ● 5328d

That's all very well saying that, Adam. But how is one supposed to know about this report?  Especially if you are unfamiliar with these matters of procedure. As an objector by letter, should I have had a reply other than an acknowledgement of receipt? Should I have been guided to the existence and location of such a report?  Should I have received a copy?In fact, I did not even know the date of the meeting until afterwards when a neighbour who did attend told me about it. However to hear that my written objections had been ignored along with those of many others is not good and not right.If people do not have access or are not advised of the existence of such a report, how can objections be objective?It does not make things any better. A full time council officer made a wholly unsound dismissal of parking in the area foisting the blame onto the lack of a CPZ.Two councillors who voted for this live in this area and must be more than aware of how acute the problem is at night albeit that one has a driveway.Objections aside, they must have raised an eyebrow at what they heard. Neither chose to question it.One did question the access of a garage leased by a certain former local MP. But asked not one other question, Hardly representative.The planning officers also produced a map which omitted the Electricity Sub-Station. The main cause for objection is the loss of emergency and maintenance access to it. They mentioned it being a bombsite but did not mention why the site was never built on. There are three major reasons. Neither have been raised or investigated by the developer or the planning officers.It was made an amenity site in the 1950's, planners claimed it was a brownfield site.If an ordinary local person can find out facts and substantiate them, why is it that full time professionals cannot?  Or is it will not?It's not about getting one's way although that appears to be an agenda by a few politicians. It is about things being done in a proper and correct fashion.Even the Housing officer admitted that everything had been rushed and not carried out in the correct order and whilst completed, was not necessarily correct.The fact is the garages will now probably be demolished . Then, when it is discovered that the site is unable to meet safety regulations for the water and electricity issues will get left derelict.  And it is odds on there won't be funds to rebuild the garages.

Michael Brandt ● 5328d

Aren't ward councillors supposed to give objectors the necessary guidance or speak on their behalf like MPs do?

Anthony Waller ● 5327d

I must admit I'm quite shocked by the contents of your post Michael.  I totally agree with you that the procedures should be that that any objector to a planning application which is being referred to committee for a decision is notified of that fact, including the time and date of the meeting, where the agenda can be viewed and the protocol for speakers.  Certainly when I was at LBH whenever an enforcement case went to committee I would make sure my Team wrote to both sides to advise of the above.On other points, in this day and age I don't think Officers should have to provide objectors with a copy of their report, given that the agenda is available on the Council's website etc. a week in advance, and nor would I expect an Officer to provide you with a response to your objector beyond an acknowledgement (many Council don't even provide an acknowledgement).  Imagine the time it would take for an Officer to personally respond to every single letter of representation, making sure to refer to the specific points raised by the author.I can't comment on your specific points because I don't know the site/situation well enough, but to add some balance to my earlier post I'll openly admit that I think that generally (and there are many good Council planners out there) the quality of Council planning officers has declined significantly in the last 5 years or so.

Adam Beamish ● 5327d

I do concur with you Adam that there are many many who are very good at what they do in this field and have known several whom alas are now retired.I don't always share their views but all have been fair, honest and almost irritatingly fastidious to detail. But I do appreciate your comments, but what has happened and for whatever reason it's not good enough.

Anthony Waller ● 5327d

I would argue that Adam knows his field and clearly knows it well, however, having been a Civil Servant for some time, I also know that when someone in power wants something they get it.That appears to be the case here. This has been on the agenda for some for some time now and is indicative of certain politicians in this area. In the name of 'helping' they are going to line their own pockets and, hopefully, be forced to walk away in shame at the next local election.The damage will be done to the area but the only way to tell these people, who are so far up their own egos, is to not vote for them again.Do not vote 'C' whatever ward you're in and unfortunately, I have to say, the person who I thought was a very good councillor (H) has now shown himself to be corruptible (or weak) and is therefore equally unworthy of a vote.

Claire Peleschka ● 5327d

I always appreciate that the average Joe Bloggs isn't an expert on planning policy,  I like that, take one look around Brentford and tell  me who is. I think I would rather have Joe Bloggs than your planning department. After allits Joe Bloggs  who has to live with the decision

Robert Ayres ● 5327d

‘… the quality of Council planning officers has declined significantly in the last 5 years or so.’Is this the same as discussed on another thread that by ‘down grading’ Personnel management to a lesser qualified and challenging title of HR, an excuse can be made for not having employed the right person in the job?  Can anyone be a ‘planning officer’ ?

Sarah Felstead ● 5327d

I don't think many Councils insist on people who apply to be planning officers on being qualified town planners, i.e. with a planning degree.  Usually in senior positions yes, but many people start out their planning careers without any actual planning qualifications to their name.  Most are of course then encouraged/funded to study for their planning degree whilst in employment.For what it's worth, I don't think a planning degree means a great deal in terms of a planner's abilities.  I have both a planning degree and a postgraduate diploma in town planning, but like many jobs my degree was never particularly important in my day to day work.    Some of my old coursemates qualified as planners but decided against becoming town planners.  I've employed staff who aren't qualified planners who turned out to be excellent at the job, and vice versa.I do think it takes a certain type of person to be a town planner though ;-)

Adam Beamish ● 5327d

Parking woes in Brook Road South?This double-decker bus seemingly had no fears in tackling the local streets and managed to find a spot!Picture by Jason Beverley on flickr.

Jim Lawes ● 5326d

Ah yes but if you look closely he's actually parked on the brand new double yellow lines so was lucky that local councillors didn't run out and issue an on the spot fine

Claire Peleschka ● 5326d

If you look even more closely you'll see the driver's getting a parking ticket  ; )

Rod de St Croix ● 5325d

So full planning permission has been approved for the demolition of the garages in Lateward Road.  I hope our friendly local councilor is proud of himself!  I'd be surprised if there was any local support for this proposed development?Well done London Borough of Hounslow for ruining another area of Brentford.

Jennifer Long ● 5324d

I am sure that it is nothing more than councillors trying to help those in need and there is nothing underhanded going on between the newbie councillor who is the lead for housing, the councillor whose day job is to get planning permission approved by developers and the councillor who has just had a jolly in the South of France with a bunch of developers!!!

Claire Peleschka ● 5324d

maybe i'm missing something, but according the agenda of the "isleworth and brentford area committee" this, and similar proposal for brook road south were worthy of discussion...not EVEN ONCEremember that next election

Jonathan Portch ● 5324d

when is the next election? Cannot come soon enough for me

paul wilson ● 5323d

The more I hear about our  local councillors the worse it gets. They seem to have forgotten they are primarily a servant of the local people of the ward that elected them and act on their wishes first, policy second.How very strange that the one decent councillor has suddenly turned to evading this and the Watermans issue. Has he been got at?It really is time that no councillor should be able to stand for more than 2 consecutive terms. As for the newbie, well 10/10 for his attendance but how does he do a day job and all these listed portfolios ? No-one can possibly make clear decisions based on understanding with that sort of workload and be able to get it right. And it's more than apparent that getting it wrong is the norm.

Anthony Waller ● 5323d