Forum Topic

Time to call Time on Hounslow Borough?

It's becoming more and more evident that the London Borough of Hounslow is becoming too big, unwieldy and less able to deliver for it's wide diversity of population.It is also appearing to be too much of a playground for politicians wanting to play big politics rather than look after the well being of it's wards.I think it's high time the borough was split along with a part of Ealing and Hillingdon and a new borough created.It is now blatant to all who live here in TW8 that Chiswick, Brentford, Osterley and Isleworth get largely plundered. Brentford has been used and abused as a dumping ground and Chiswick seen as a cash cow.Too much has been taken out over too long and not enough been put back.The crass assumption that anyone who lives in Brentford or Chiswick and is not in social housing, must therefore be rich is outdated and plain wrong.A new borough of Brentford, Chiswick. Osterley and Isleworth, 'Riverside Borough' suggested once before now seems to be more common sense than fantasy.Still demographically a full gamut but big enough yet local enough to manage things more appropriately. Equally a rearrangement of Hounslow, Southall, Cranford, Heston and Hayes would also serve needs better.But for this borough corporation to carry on plundering the west end of it is at the point of enough being enough. Time for change.

Anthony Waller ● 5355d25 Comments

You are going against the grain in London, Anthony. Nearby, Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster have combined their officer teams with just one Chief Executive responsible for the combined boroughs. Although there are still 3 councils, it is clear that some see the model as the basis for "Super-Boroughs" in London reducing the number in the capital from 32 to around 10 or less.As to the argument of who benefits most and least from the borough, this is a moot point. The area you suggest as a new entity has 3 of Hounslow's 5 swimming pools. Two of these have benefitted from heavy investment in the last 5 years or so, as has the Feltham facility in the west of the borough.The residents of Hounslow, Heston and Cranford are more numerous than those in Chiswick, Brentford, Isleworth and Osterley combined. However, they have only 1 swimming pool, Heston, which is in danger of closure due to lack of investment. Hounslow pool was closed a long time ago and replaced by the Brentford Leisure Centre on Chiswick High Road.As a former councillor for central Hounslow, my constituents' complaint was that we were bled of resources to pay for facilities such as Watermans and the New Chiswick Pool in the east, Feltham Leisure Centre in the west, and got nothing in return.Hounslow does have an excellent library facility. Apart from that, arguably it has sod all.

John Connelly ● 5355d

I would support John in what he has said, as a fomer colleague of his, I well remember the amount of time and money spent constantly consulting the great and good of Chiswick over the blasted CPZ areas way back, only to then find out they couldn't or wouldn't agree amongst themselves when other parts of the borough were crying out for parking controls. Then they'd complain about the parking problems! Chiswick has always been under the mistaken impression that they are this famed "cash cow", it just isn't true. Some of the more vocal and articulate groups and individuals of the borough are Chiswick residents and they have played their part over the years in perpetuating this myth. Chiswick has always seen itself as too posh for humble Hounslow that's the truth of the matter, I've lost count of the amount of times someone there has suggested they should be part of another borough.

Vanessa Smith ● 5354d

I've long been a decentralist and would love to see Hounslow broken up into smaller units, ideally even to ward level, although as John says this is swimming against the tide somewhat.  Politicians by nature like to centralise things, it makes sense for them both economically and politically.I do however share the reservations that have been expressed about Chiswick.  Osterley is "posh" but I feel the people nonetheless share something of a local identity with us (I live in Isleworth).  The active communities of Isleworth and Brentford are very similar in character, largely working class but generally proud, intelligent and independent, recent political aberrations notwithstanding.Having worked in Chiswick for the last few months I feel that people there are definitely "different" to the rest of us.  Many of them are very pleasant, but a not insubstantial number seem possessed of the very real fear that if they so much as say "good morning" to a menial they automatically become one. In many respects Chiswick has a sense of community that is stronger even than our own, but I can't help but feel that much of its civic defence instinct is about maintaining property prices rather than the aesthetic and spiritual quality of the community itself.  I may be being unfair, and I'm aware that I am generalising for effect, but there is some anecdotal evidence to support my view.The Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee could potentially have provided a rallying point for some kind of "devolution" campaign, but of course the politicians have all but abolished it.My feeling is that we are stuck with the London Borough of Hounslow as a political entity until such a time as they decide to lumber us with something even less democratic. But that doesn't mean that we cannot make the most of what we have and do what we can to stress and to strengthen the unique character of each individual community within the region that you have identified.

Phil Andrews ● 5354d

Hmmmn.  Not sure about this one - what is your background Anthony?  :-)

Sarah Felstead ● 5354d

Born in Brentford, lived in 5 countries back in Brentford . No political allegiance.My point is really born out by the opposite view. No-where in the Borough has really benefited over 45 years. Hounslow is as crap as it was in the early seventies, Brentford is little better.  and the Western end of the borough uses most of the resources funded.It is the complete diversity in the demographics of the borough that make it unwieldy and so many solutions appropriate for one area are wholly inappropriate for other areas.The mergers of Hammersmith and Kensington are not so strange as they do not have the same degree of social diversity and the area covered is so much more compact.But there lays the point. Hounslow borough has a huge population. Very dense. and as high as two other boroughs put together.Chiswick, Osterley, Isleworth and Brentford combined do not make up a posh district. It is socially and demographically very balanced with the whole gamut of society. What it does not have is a wild variation in diversity so It's needs can be more evenly and cost effectively catered for. Realigning the western and norther parts of the borough could also create a much better deal and service for it's demographic and social groupings.Facilities like the Fountain have not really replaced local facilities like Brentford Baths it's not local in the heart of residential Brentford.The Watermans is super but the building's design is almost a crime for it's limitations.Chiswick has what?  A chronic lack of parking facilities, A small pool that replaced a wonderful open air lido.In truth, the whole borough is not really anywhere as good as it should be after nearly 50 years, and given it's size and population it's easy to see why it cannot ever work.

Anthony Waller ● 5354d

I find myself puzzled as to exactly what it is you want. In case you hadn't noticed we live in an extremely diverse society right across the country. All I can say is that there are far worse places to be, that's not to say that things can't be improved, but in these financially straightened times it's hard to see where the money will be found. Or are you suggesting some sort of social apartheid?

Vanessa Smith ● 5354d

No political allegiance. Oh pull the other one.Brentford has changed quite lot when coming from Kew Bridge. Also it is no longer first time house buyers territory. The same goes for more and more of Isleworth and Osterley.  Using your argument about social balance has a sense of the elitist. Technically Ealing is larger and is the fourth most diverse place to live in the UK. Sounds as though you may be saying lump Southall with Hounslow.They had ghettoes in Poland.

George Knox ● 5354d

My street is full of first time buyers, including myself. Nor do I earn a big salary just basic rate tax.Brentford is full of overpriced developments of very poor quality and wholly unsuitable for families and creating vibrant stable communities.Hounslow has been and still is far more interested in the money and sweeteners offered by developers than it is in ensuring a quality development which will be good for the existing residents and new ones.It's gone on for decades regardless of which political party is in power and it's still happening.The only reason the GWQ development has stopped is because buy to let mortgages are almost impossible to get. No-one actually aspires to living there permanantly.Brentford and Isleworth have over 56% social housing so private dwellings are in the minority. So what's elitist about that?It is starting to become expensive. Ever asked why that might be?Because private owner occupiers turned much of it from damp and rot ridden slums into  half decent homes and dug deep into their pockets to do so.When, as mentioned, other councils are combining services to best serve its demographic population, That makes sense, But in both Ealing and Hounslow that mix is much wider ranging. It is much harder to do so.Fact is these demographical mixes are now long established, happily settled and stable. But split up by boundaries that are not natural (or are not anymore.)Would it not make sense to service the types of needs of Southall and Hounslow from one source?  Which are different from the types of needs of Feltham and Bedfont and Hayes? Or the western end.? What is obvious is that currently this borough cannot balance things evenly. Ealing is a little better but not much.So yes I am saying realign services to suit the types of population better rather than this jack of all trades mess that exists now.With it so cumbersome everyone gets a below par service. I am suggesting a realignment of boroughs and a creation of another one to be more able to serve it's local populus. People were forced into ghettos. Very different from choosing where you want to live which is still a right of even those with nowt.

Anthony Waller ● 5353d

Don't take any notice Anthony.It's just George invoking Godwin's law again.

Keith Iddon ● 5353d

Well I think A is complaining about resources being drawn away to serve the needs of the apalling deprivation in the areas mainly populated by ethnic minorities. That complaint very understandably has been going on for 20 years or so.But if you follow the suggestion that those areas can be administered separately, there will be insufficient income for their new Council coffers to meet those needs. I submit that would lead to far greater problems.I don't like having to fund all these problems any more than you, but they are there and there is no choice but to confront them even though it makes the rest of us poorer. That is the reality and your vision is more Utopian.In any event with the sharing of Council services beginning to take off, I predict we may well see a shrinking of the number of Councils in London.Thanks Keith for that. I had to look it up!

George Knox ● 5353d

It doesn't require a political separation (and I use the word here with a small "p").  That could not legally be achieved and in any case, as has been said, it flies in the face of the way in which things unfortunately are heading.What is needed is the election of an administration which has the vision to appreciate the benefits of some level of community self-regulation, and which sets the processes in motion and provides the resources accordingly.As I previously stated, the Area Committees could have been moved forward with such an end in mind.  Unfortunately however they were created by the wrong people for the wrong reasons and then killed off as soon as was expedient.Communities need to create their own structures and develop them in defiance of the local authority and of the political powers that be.  Once sufficient numbers of people get the idea and critical mass is reached there is no turning back whatever the political (big "p") landscape.  As the library campaigners and the residents of St. John's and around Mogden in Isleworth will testify.

Phil Andrews ● 5353d

I did not mention appalling poverty of ethnic minorities.After 50 plus years of dense ethnic groups in west london it's more than apparent that a vast majority have more than dragged themselves out of poverty and form the backbone of a large part of two boroughs.I've worked in countries where the word poverty really means something.We have it here sure but it's a different kind of poverty. In this country you are stripped of your dignity and pride. Something that oddly exists with people who have absolutely nothing overseas.There is poverty in many groups and not all ethnic. In fact, some of the worst is white working class and it's one of the hardest to solve. The mentality of many ethnic groups gets them out of poverty pretty quick.

Anthony Waller ● 5353d

"Unfortunately however they were created by the wrong people for the wrong reasons and then killed off as soon as was expedient."I think that's very disingenuous, I remember very well the setting up of those area committees - and the huge row about the actual areas they would represent. There was a big push from officers and some other councillors to shove Isleworth and Brentford in with Chiswick. I was the only Isleworth councillor who could attend the meeting where this was being foisted upon us, the others being busy elsewhere and I was left in no doubt as to my fellow Isleworthians feelings on the matter and that I had to dig my heels in on a matter of principle that Isleworth and Brentford were not natural bedfellows with Chiswick, and that we were not prepared to accept anything less than an area committee just for Isleworth & Brentford. There was a lot of pressure to back off, we just wouldn't. We wanted our own area committee as we recognised the differences between the areas. I don't call that setting up  the area committees up for "the wrong reasons". You will be aware that the reason that they were "killed off" as you put it -unfairly in my view, was because of the cuts imposed by central government on local authorities. It was feasible, if not as acceptable, to move a lot of the functions back into the main council structure. Any suggestion that the area committees weren't valued and effective in most cases if not all, just isn't true.

Vanessa Smith ● 5353d

Speaking from an Officer's perspective, I was frequently 'amused' by how one night I'd be at Chiswick Area Committee trying to convince Members that it really wasn't a big deal that an extension had been built 0.1 metres wider than approved, then the next I'd be at Heston and Cranford struggling to get Members to agree to taking enforcement action against a massive unauthorised extension !.Personally speaking I loved the variety and professionally speaking I think it contributed to my career development and gave me a better appreciation of where both Councillors and their constituents were coming from.  Thus in many ways I don't like the concept of one single planning committee for an entire Borough, and it is rather contradictory to the whole concept of Localism (although as Vanessa says the reasons were financial) but on the other hand I felt that local pressure sometimes used to sway Members at Area Committees too much (and I fear Localism would have exactly the same consequences).

Adam Beamish ● 5353d

You're welcome George.Now you know.

Keith Iddon ● 5353d

VanessaIf everything you say is true I still don't see how it negates my comments one bit.But regardless of this I don't think it washes simply blaming central government for the very swift and, from what I can see, pretty much uncontended decision to pass local planning powers back to officers.There were other ways in which money could have been saved without removing as many powers from the ACs (I proposed one in some detail at a special cross-party meeting to discuss this issue towards the end of the last administration).  What is more, an authority that was truly committed to localism would have compensated for this retrograde move by offering other cash-neutral options for the devolution of powers, of which there are many.The ease with which the ACs were swept away suggests to me that, at best, members of the current administration allowed the Director of Environment to walk all over them or, at worst, that they were willing participants.At the very least it tells us that for the current administration, and also indeed for the opposition which offered no resistance, real local democracy is considered to be a luxury and an optional extra.I am of course aware that the original structures were created under a Labour administration.  I am also mindful of how much grief ICG and other councillors regularly received at IBAC during the 2006-2010 term from what seemed to have been a more or less permanent Labour-Tory bloc whenever we tried to effect radical change of any kind.  I would guess that this was the time when the powers that now be decided they had to go.

Phil Andrews ● 5352d

I think Adam has hit a real point. My own bugbear with LBH is it's one size fits all string of policies, it's indifference to it's conservation areas and plundering of districts for another.It's planning that seems to be the worst and the scars are all over the borough.I think Mr Waller is treading into territory where politicians and especially Hounslow ones will not want to go. It might put an end to the cosy arrangements that are the root of too many ills.But I think he is right in many ways, especially the common sense of making the best for the locality in it's own specific ways.It is probably near time to debate this fully in public and not let the politicians manipulate it. This might be a change that the electronic era will bring about as more of us become enlightened to the heady mix of corruption and incompetence and political posturing.

Michael Brandt ● 5352d

Whilst the area committees may have been important to you and yours, the fact is other people see things differently and have other priorities, paranoia must be setting in if you seriously believe that there was some sort of plot to do away with them given the first opportunity. Surely it makes some sense to look at what may be replicated or what can be done within an existing set-up when looking to trim budgets? Everyone knows that personally we've all had to look at what a difference the increase in household bills, petrol and food along with wage freezes or even job loss has made to disposable income and what we can do without, luxuries are the first to go. Pubs and restaurants have felt the brunt of this as we can see locally, it is the same with councils, and while you may not like the decision or agree with it I think seeing this demise of the area planning committees as some sort of twisted political machination is frankly way, way over the top. The government may talk 'localism' and small may be beautiful but the reality is that it is also more expensive, whether you accept it or not the vicious cuts in local authority budgets by this Con-Dem government are at the root of this.

Vanessa Smith ● 5352d

"Whilst the area committees may have been important to you and yours, the fact is other people see things differently and have other priorities"Which is precisely what I have said.  Nobody has suggested any "plots" - why would an administration with a clear majority have to "plot" to implement its own policies and strategies?And as you have referred to the ACs as "luxuries" yourself, I can't really see how you can then criticise me for believing that this is how you see them.The government cuts are indeed behind the closures and threats of closures to local facilities, eveybody understands that.  But at the end of the day councils need to assess their priorities in the light of those cuts, and the speed with which Hounslow put community centres and area committees into the frame gives us some idea of its priorities.

Phil Andrews ● 5352d

So what you would have done is taken what I would consider a luxury that could be dealt with elsewhere over necessities that perhaps couldn't? It really boils down to differing priorities, and who is to say who's right or wrong?

Vanessa Smith ● 5352d

I am not saying that I am right and you are wrong Vanessa.  I am arguing the case for the priorities and the values that I personally hold dear.Participation is a right in any democracy, it is not a favour bestowed upon us from above which can be casually withdrawn upon a whim.  The logical conclusion of your argument would be to abolish elections entirely if it saves a few quid (let's ignore for the moment that the same savings could have been made without abolishing the ACs anyway).  There really is no difference other than in degree.Like I say it is a matter of personal priorities and adversarial politics is all about competing priorities.  But it is reasonable that those who would override the wishes and the fundamental rights of those who are active within the community should expect to have to answer to those people when their opportunity comes.

Phil Andrews ● 5352d

"But it is reasonable that those who would override the wishes and the fundamental rights of those who are active within the community should expect to have to answer to those people when their opportunity comes."You talk as if anyone who doesn't see things your way is some sort of Stalin, you know as I do that when you are in a position of elected responsibility you have to take tough decisions that inevitably some people are not going to agree with. You just cannot regard that as 'overriding the wishes and fundamental rights' of people, situations you have no control over often dictate what course of action you take within the small space you have for manoeuvre. I can never recall anyone sitting around taking decisions on the basis of who they could p*** off the most, which is what you seem to be suggesting. You cannot please all of the people all of the time. Most of the time you feel that you can't please anybody at all!

Vanessa Smith ● 5351d

"I can never recall anyone sitting around taking decisions on the basis of who they could p*** off the most, which is what you seem to be suggesting."Not at all.  What I'm suggesting is that the administration has different priorities to those I personally would prefer it to have and, much more than that, has priorities which quite clearly conflict with the objective of building a more involved and inclusive community.I don't need to introduce conspiracy theories or allegations of Stalinism, the hard evidence to support my suggestion is contained in your own words and their own actions.There is nothing conspiratorial or sinister about one group of people having different priorities to another group of people, what the present administration cannot reasonably do however is pursue its priorities as aggressively as it has been doing whilst at the same time professing not to be doing so, or claiming to be acting under protest.  Those who take an interest in these things will consider the libraries, St. John's Community Centre, the Brentford Festival and the area committees and will see a pattern forming.  People are not stupid.If you have priorities, whatever they may be, stand up for them and argue your case with pride.  There are plenty who will agree with them, as the result of the last local elections demonstrated.

Phil Andrews ● 5351d

Brfore Hounslow, it was the Borough of Brentford and Chiswick

paul wilson ● 5316d

If your idea results in an increases in bureaucracy than I am against it.Bureaucracy serves nothing but itself and adds no value.  Plenty of evidence to be found in how bloated these have become with overspending by central govt over the time of the previous regime.The problem with this regime is not reducing bureacracy quickly or effectively enough.Bottom line it that they cannot be trusted to do such a thing in the way you suggest.  It will result in nothing but a new set of Chief Executives and their friends strutting around on their mega salaries, deciding which public service to cut back on.Not withstanding the fine comments made on this thread already, but if they could get it right, they would already have done so.

Asif Rana ● 5313d