Forum Topic

Moronic decision of the planning committee

Neon signs on top of the Green Dragon Lane tower blocks - refusal of the application receommnded by the planning department and also borough solicitor, yet members fly in the face of all the advice and representations of residents and approve this eyesore. Apparently it's all about Hounslow (hopeless) Homes making a few bob, and two Brentford councillors Matt Harmer and Ruth Cadbury supported this travesty. All the councillors who voted for this should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, when was making money a planning consideration? Did I imagine it or was the campaign to get the much liked Lucozade sign replaced told that it was a distraction to drivers on the elevated section of the A4, even though it had been there for donkey's years? Then this gets approved - it beggars belief. I have a suggestion for the twerps who run Hopeless Homes, try letting your properties out instead of leaving them boarded up and empty for months on end, if you're so concerned about revenue.

Vanessa Smith ● 4797d113 Comments

http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&link=http://nnet-server.com/server/common/boultonhouse001.htmFrom the front page of the W4.com website we read that the Kew Gardens management are also not too happy about advertising distractions on the top of Boulton House.. one of the 22/23 storey tower blocks on Green Dragon Lane.Visitors at Kew Gardens would be viewing the Tower Block from the south.  WE (or most of us),viewing from the north, are not happy that travelling up the eastbound slip road to the "M4" are likely to be distracted.. when we need to keep or eyes on the road.Will the Planning Approval decision be reversed?

Jim Lawes ● 4716d

"but many of its surveys have been so ridiculously loaded that the responses they provoke cannot be taken seriously."Yes I know. My post was somewhat tongue in cheek - the implication of course being that many will have been 'lobbied' to vote and thus the 55% achievement.I do indeed find John Todd's post very funny when referring to officer comments. "The proposal must be considered in regards to its impacts on amenity and public safety.....if  it is considered that the proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the immediate environment and surrounding areas. Refusal has therefore been recommended."How strange that in the Mogden issue, same officers did not recommend refusal on the same grounds as "adverse impact on the amenity of the IMMEDIATE environment" ! But John Todd says thats OK.

Steve Taylor ● 4780d

I've not seen the actual question the Chronicle asked, but many of its surveys have been so ridiculously loaded that the responses they provoke cannot be taken seriously.Remember the Chronicle's Mogden question after the now notorious SDC decision?  Something along the lines of "If Mogden expansion leads to less odour is it a good idea?".  Guess what - the paper found that a majority of readers were in favour of expansion!

Phil Andrews ● 4780d

Hounslow Chronicle OnLine petition.  55% voted that the Council is right to allow giant adverts on Brentford tower blocks as a way of making money for the Borough.  45% voted it is not right to do so.

Steve Taylor ● 4780d

JohnWhilst it is the holding of a pecuniary interest that would automatically disqualify a member from voting, it is good practice to declare any interest that might have the effect of prejudicing one's vote in one direction or another.  This was certainly done on IBAC for as long as I can recall.Once such a declaration is made it is usually up to the member concerned and his or her conscience as to whether or not they feel they should vote on the matter in hand.  If there is any doubt the decent thing to do would usually be to withdraw from the vote and possibly even the discussion.Councillor Harmer has done this on many occasions at IBAC when applications have been too close to home, so he certainly knows the drill.

Phil Andrews ● 4783d

I can see the logic in Council house tenants and those protecting the interests of council housing stock having a say or vote on what goes on.I don't suppose I would have a problem with the signs if they faced upwards and could be read by just airline passengers.But these flats can be seen from Kew Gardens, Gunnersbury Park North Ealing, South Ealing and even St Pauls Rec and a few streets in Brentford.Signs like these along city limits have by worldwide association a stigma of sleeze and social decay and dereliction, There's enough of that in Brentford already.If they are going to make ££££££££s out of it then it must be spent in and around the areas it blights. The flats, the grounds, Gunnersbury Park, the riverside and the streets. No way should it go to Heston, Osterley, Feltham or anywhere else. By the same token if they want to do the same on the Ivybridge estate, the money should go to that surrounding fallout area.Exactly how much are the borough of which we are funding stakeholders making from this?

Anthony Waller ● 4783d

Membership of the Hounslow Homes Board is not a pecuniary interest and would not have to be declared. The same would be true for the Cabinet lead member. Indeed, the law affecting councillor interests specifically permits council tenants who are members to take part in matters involving council housing. Hounslow Homes is an arms-length company and no councillor has a pecuniary interest in this body in Hounslow.As Phil says, the only option that is likely to have any chance of success in challenging the decision is a judicial review. Note that earlier Hounslow Council decisions to oppose signs overlooking the M4 were lost on appeal, and the Mayor's Office recently supported illuminated adverts at the Chiswick roundabout.AND.......... the adverts you pass on the M4 raise up to £1 million EACH for their owners.

John Connelly ● 4783d

Is the object of the exercise merely to register our displeasure, or is it to overturn the decision?  If it is the latter I fear that JR would be the only (expensive) option.

Phil Andrews ● 4784d

Well, according to the latest news the Standards Cttee. is being abolished - could already have been done? The borough solicitor or Chief Exec. would seem to be the alternatives.

Vanessa Smith ● 4784d

So exactly how does one complain? Individually or by group action and to whom?

Michael Brandt ● 4784d

Did nobody think to mention it at the meeting?

Phil Andrews ● 4784d

According to the printed minutes no one declared that they were hounslow homes board members  Or the lead member for housing

Gill Hutchison ● 4784d

Does Cllr Curran also not have an interest holding two relevant posts?That of Tenant/ Leaseholders JCC and Planning commitees and Chair of the local residents association. He ought to be neutral surely?

Michael Brandt ● 4784d

Did he fail to declare an interest also Gillian?If so then the combination of two HH Board Members involved with the decision and both not declaring an interest should in my opinion be investigatedWhy is it that over the last few years it is a constant fact that when shall we say dubious planning decisions are made it is always without fail members of the Hounslow Labour Party involved?

Paul Fisher ● 4784d

And cllr Ajmer Dillion who is also a hounslow homes board member he voted for it aswell

Gill Hutchison ● 4784d

As you rightly mention Cllr Todd it certainly looks as though Cllr Collins did not declare any form of interest seeing as he is a Director of Hounslow Homes and this alone should surely invalidate the decision made and should be a matter for both the Borough Solicitor and also the Standards Committiee

Paul Fisher ● 4784d

I still would not appear to have received any response to my request for information as to how any monies gained from the granting of this planning permission will benefit the residents of the Brentford towers.

Phil Andrews ● 4784d

Labour Councillors continue to remain silent on this significant matter. Jim mentions possible local developers views. Please see the Late Report submitted at the Boulton House planning hearing set out below.Good old Cllr. Mel Collins, whilst absent from the hearing (and a Director of Hounslow Homes which is not mentioned or apparently  declared in his submission)  argues financial income for LBH as a planning criteria. A remarkable precedent?Keep going Jim and Co. Planning Committee Report 14 June 2012 ADDENDUM REPORTAGENDA ITEM 6Boulton House, Green Dragon Lane, TW8 0DAPages 39 – 50 Paragraph 5.2 - Following the publication of the agenda, an objection was received from St James Group Ltd. The objection states that the St James Group Ltd are a key local stakeholder, who are about to commence construction on a residential led mixed-use development. St James considers that: - the principle of the proposal is incongruous and incompatible with the surrounding residential area; - the location, scale and illumination are visually intrusive on the skyline; - the proposal will have a negative impact on the built and natural environment; - the proposal would set an inappropriate precedent for all towers on the Estate; - the proposal would prove detrimental to forthcoming residential development and the sympathetic regeneration of Brentford.Officer response:Accordingly, the St James Group Ltd supports the officer’s recommendation for refusal. The issues raised within the objection are assessed within the officer’s report. Paragraph 5.2 – A letter has been received from the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society strongly endorsing the officer’s recommendation for refusal. Paragraph 5.8 – Following the publication of the agenda, comments were received from Councillor Collins. He is fully supportive of the project with at least 55% of the revenue remaining with the Brentford Towers and the other 45% for environmental improvements within the Isleworth and Brentford Area. Officer response:No details of the cost, profit or funding received from the advertisement have been provided with the application. Financial benefits cannot be considered when assessing the proposal. The proposal must be considered in regards to its impacts on amenity and public safety. As detailed within the committee report it is considered that the proposal will have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of the immediate environment and surrounding areas. Refusal has therefore been recommended. Paragraph 6.1 – Following the publication of the agenda, the applicant has questioned why the assessment has been made against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), rather than the previous guidance which was Planning Policy Guidance 19 (Advertisements). The NPPF replaced PPG19. Planning applications are determined on the basis of policies in force at the point of a decision being made, and not on the policies in force at the time the application is made. This is accepted practice that has been established through case law. Circular 03/2007 (Advertisements) still requires consideration and provides guidance on the assessment of amenity and public safety. This has been referenced throughout the officer’s report on the application where relevant. Paragraph 7.6 – The applicant has argued that commercial advertising is located on buildings in Europe and over the world and it is therefore appropriate in this location.  For example, there are a number of residential buildings surrounding the ring road in Paris which have commercial advertising on the roof. Whilst this is noted, it is not considered that this sets an example that should be followed in Brentford. As detailed within the report, the building is located where it is highly visible from of a number of sensitive viewpoints, including a World Heritage listed area, and the locality is currently undergoing significant regeneration. The adverse impact to the amenity of the environment is addressed in detail in the committee report. Paragraph 7.8 – The applicant has stated that there is a benefit to residents and the Council in approving this application against tightening public service budgets. Whilst this is noted, this is not something that can be considered when assessing advertisement applications. Consideration needs to be given to amenity and public safety only. It is not considered a financial benefit can outweigh the significant adverse impacts on amenity.

John Todd ● 4784d

"Thick as planks" is the term that comes to my mind.Common sense doesn't prevail.Ask the experts..us!Thanks Phil for your fine written observation.I recall Ken Livingstone paying £36,000,000 to Planners and consultants working on the West London Tram Scheme.. you know the one along the Uxbridge Road from Westfield, Acton, Hanwell, to Uxbridge.  I listened incredulously as some highly expensive individual described how parts of Acton High Street would be closed to ordinary traffic...which would be diverted down Lardens Road and some how go down Bollo Bridge Road before rejoining the Uxbridge Road.  A totally doppy idea and he a waste of our money.One wonders if the LED Neon lighting will affect future residents of the new Kew Bridge Road development next to Holland Gardens.  I gather that the developers are concerned too.. (only hearsay though).

Jim Lawes ● 4784d

"It would appear you are not the only one who made the mistake.I spoke with the Highways agency and they stated that the flats were not at all visible from the M4 ramp.They then said what ramp when I pointed out the eastbound ramp.They denied it's existence!I have sent them pictures and have just had a call to say they are reviewing the situation as they had only considered the westbound aspect."God help us, even more morons!

Vanessa Smith ● 4785d

It would appear you are not the only one who made the mistake.I spoke with the Highways agency and they stated that the flats were not at all visible from the M4 ramp.They then said what ramp when I pointed out the eastbound ramp.They denied it's existence!I have sent them pictures and have just had a call to say they are reviewing the situation as they had only considered the westbound aspect.

Anthony Waller ● 4785d

My favourite was a report including a demographic survey showing that life expectancy was considerably lower in Syon ward than in any other ward in the borough.Being a resident of Syon ward this quite concerned me, until it was admitted to me without any obvious hint of embarrassment that the presence of West Middlesex Hospital in the ward had not been taken account of when an "expert" had ventured to analyse the figures.Doh!

Phil Andrews ● 4785d

Very true that I made a mistake, but equally my overall conclusions remain unaffected.  And the experts, in this case the Highways Agency, TfL etc, all of whom were consulted on the application, didn't make the mistake I did and concluded that the advert would not cause conditions detrimental to highway safety.  So in this case your point doesn't quite stack up.I'll give you a better one I stumbled across today - client comes to me shocked that a Council are asking for a financial contribution of almost £195k towards affordable housing for a 2 unit scheme.  He sends me the papers and a copy of the Council's calculations, and I immediately note that the Council is applying a 100% multiplier rather than the correct 10% multiplier, so in fact the correct contribution is £19,500, not £195k...a small difference of £175k :-oThat kind of thing really alarms me, because to me whilst the mistake itself is easily made, common sense should make the person who made that mistake think "hang on, that sounds an absurdly high amount of money for a 2 unit scheme, I'd better double check my calculations".Probably the best 1/4 hours bit of work I've ever done, saving someone £175k ;-)

Adam Beamish ● 4785d

Jim Lawes ● 4786d

(One every 90 seconds)Brentford FC new Lionel Road fllodlights!),img src=http://gosmellthecoffee.com/files/2008/10/carcartoon.gif>This is just a COMMON SENSE cartoon! Those who voted for aerial advertisements...visible at this delicate road junction (the merging of main roads)... need to be kangaroo courted for gross folly. THE DECISION OUGHT TO BE REVERSED.

Jim Lawes ● 4786d

Could the roofs be used to site missiles, like in East London? Can I play?

Ian Silver ● 4787d

Specialaist and professional drivers are trained to expect the unexpected, and not to be distracted.But we have an awful lot of poor drivers and driving standards to contend with as well.Road planners and designers try to factor this in and in the main get it right. But it is not possible to always eliminate hazards and potential danger situations.Sometimes they get it wrong. The left turn into Ealing Road from Brentford High St is now really dodgy for pedestrians so most with common sense cross the road further up a bit as they have a clear easy view of whats coming.The A4 and M4 carries a higher proportion of non-local and foreign traffic than most, and we already know about dangers to cyclists and LHD trucks.It cannot have escaped anyones notice that locally there are a lot of really rubbish drivers , who don't look and are easily distracted.I can't see this changing overnight so the next best option is to make the roads as safe and easy to use for the most unable of drivers, which seems to be the case. It is why we do not have a plethora of Las Vegas style hoardings lining the road and why we have a strict uniform signage system.On fast roads and dangerous roads, distractions have been kept to a minimum and it must work as we still have a better accident rate than most other countries despite falling driving standards.I believe that although this is not the main reason for my objection to having adverts on buildings, the existing ones do cause distraction, but anything that may catch a drivers eye at a critical point should be eradicated if possible not installed.It is pure prudent common sense, nothing to do with rules, regulations and so on.How councillors cannot see that is beyond me. And with the other arguments,completely irresponsible to this towns populus

Anthony Waller ● 4787d

One of the things we are always being told during the course of these discussions is that we are not experts, and the inference usually is that we should leave these matters to those who are.  Adam is an expert.On this occasion Adam has completely misread the comments of another poster and as a result has, in driving parlance, taken a wrong turning.  An honest mistake that anybody could have made, and he was quick enough and gracious enough to apologise once his error had been pointed out to him by a number of other posters who are not experts.  No harm done, but the point is this - where would this discussion be now if we had accepted our own inadequacies, said nothing and left it to the expert?The case for public involvement and scrutiny writ large.

Phil Andrews ● 4787d

Thank you for posting these images Ian and Sarah.That's interesting ..two lanes approaching the potential BLACK SPOT. And remember these images are taken by the Google Camera some height off the ground...not low down where a car driver's cab is..which would make the viewing at a greater disadvantage.In my original posting on the 27th at 2.08am, I clearly said that my point of view referred tothe London Bound slip road. .Why Adam should be talking one minute about people looking over their left shoulder etc etc..I've no idea. Thanks to those who saw sense and agreed with what I was explaining.

Jim Lawes ● 4787d

Totally disagree, the only people would have have blood on their hands is the driver concerned, who clearly shouldn't be anywhere near the steering wheel of a vehicle as they are clearly unable to drive without due care and attention.Out of interest, and as it's in the public domain, I refer you to this appeal decision which discusses issues raised by this thread at length...http://www.pcs.planningportal.gov.uk/pcsportal/fscdav/READONLY?OBJ=COO.2036.300.12.2569165&NAME=/2130674%20Decision.pdf

Adam Beamish ● 4788d

In terms of this particular advertising, fair enough, everyone has their own perspective, but I can't share it.As I posted earlier unless a road is completely straight, empty and has solid walls on both sides, then drivers have to deal with distractions.  Be it another vehicle, an object in the sky, a hot woman (or guy) etc.  As drivers we are supposed to be capable of dealing with reasonable distraction within the definition of driving with due care and attention.In my own view (and clearly the view of the relevant experts in the field), if someone driving up the eastbound sliproad is distracted by the adverts on top of these towers, they are not driving with the due care and attention required to be on the road.  And as a driver, cyclist and pedestrian, that terrifies me.

Adam Beamish ● 4788d

Brings it full circle.Regardless of rules and procedures and politics and greed.If something happens (and the incidents involving distractions are very evident on the A4) Those who chose to ignore advice and ignore common sense and voted for it will have blood on their hands.It would be on their conscience but they are clearly devoid of such things

Anthony Waller ● 4788d

Yup, that shows it clearly.I would say that advertising signage could certainly be a distraction.

Ian Silver ● 4788d

Twizzle the picture to gain the view of a driver joining the motorway.
View Larger Map

Sarah Felstead ● 4788d

View Larger Map

Sarah Felstead ● 4788d

Do you think we could get planning permission ?Maybe pole-dancing ?

Tim Henderson ● 4788d

Not quite getting there. They were supposed to be different views on the way up the slip-road.As you get to the top it could be like entering Las Vegas.Let's get a council run casino?

Ian Silver ● 4788d

View Larger Map

Ian Silver ● 4788d

View Larger Map

Ian Silver ● 4788d

View Larger Map

Ian Silver ● 4788d

View Larger Map

Ian Silver ● 4788d

Greetings, Ian.Find the view you wish to copy on google maps - any view from the world through to a street scene view.Beside the printer sign is a link sign.Copy and paset the Short URL for an e-mail.Copy and paste the HTML link for this web site - just put in in your posting.The thrid option is a 'customise' link which allows you to enlarge the picture as it appears in your posting and to double check the picture you are linking to.Have fun.

Sarah Felstead ● 4788d

Travelling east around the junction where the A4 meets the M4 at Chiskwick roundabout - if you twizzle the picture the towers are far distant.  The next worry is that there are many many exposed rooftops along side the M4 all calling for similar hoardings, many of which will be at a far easier (safer) angle for drivers to read and absorb when driving.  Many of these will come between the road and block the sight of the towers hoardings - so would these be turned down?  How?
View Larger Map

Sarah Felstead ● 4788d

How do you post pics from Google Sarah?

Ian Silver ● 4788d

Other side of the road - with those darn trees in the way  and a good neck strain I could probably read the signs between the trees just as I turn off onto the slip road.
View Larger Map

Sarah Felstead ● 4788d

View Larger Map

Sarah Felstead ● 4788d

Apologies - going back to Jim's original post I see he clearly mentions travelling into London, the error is on my part.Still frustrates me that whilst other posters can see that simple misunderstanding and clarify the position in a polite or jocular way, Jim insults me on both a personal and professional level.As posters say, the towers are clearly visible heading up the eastbound sliproad and where the merge takes place.  My personal view (one I expressed before seeing the Officer report or the comments from statutory highway consultees) is that the towers are sufficiently far away from that point not to cause a distraction if a driver is driving with due care and attention.

Adam Beamish ● 4788d

The winter view of the advertising hoardings will be better when the trees loose their leaves.
View Larger Map

Sarah Felstead ● 4788d

View Larger Map

Sarah Felstead ● 4788d

Dreadful things these trees when they get in the way - anyone checked if there are preservation orders on the whole line of trees?
View Larger Map

Sarah Felstead ● 4788d

View Larger Map

Sarah Felstead ● 4788d

I hope Adam you don't get so confused with east and west when looking at planning applications!You are correct in the assertion that you would have to be looking the wrong way to see the flats. But this only applies if you are travelling towards Heathrow.If you drive up the ramp in a van or a higher car in the London Bound side, you can see the flats clearly.In advertising we call all sites including those lit with fluorescent or now variable intensity LEDs static. They can change colour or intensity but not shape but not have any moving parts. You should know that for sure as it is in the standard advertising size and criteria guide issued by the ASA.A rotating sign (like Mercedes have in Berlin but were not allowed in London) is an example of a non static display.There are distinctions between the rates of oscillation ie flashing or mix fading but I did not see any reference to the intention of the use in this respect.

Anthony Waller ● 4788d

You may be talking at cross purposes.Jim is talking about using the slip road going east into London. As one rises up to the elevated level, I find that I do have to glance backwards/sideways to check on the state of traffic that is already on the M4 that I am about to merge with. Hence I am looking rightish and suspect that he is right that the tower blocks would be in my field of vision.The planning report does mention the possibility of signs with "colour transition" - whatever that is !

Tim Henderson ● 4788d

Adam, you're facing in the wrong direction mate....https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Brentford&hl=en&ll=51.491618,-0.296288&spn=0.000053,0.040898&sll=53.800651,-4.064941&sspn=6.451498,20.939941&oq=brentford&t=h&hnear=Brentford,+Greater+London,+United+Kingdom&z=15&layer=c&cbll=51.491608,-0.295831&panoid=Mq1DC9O3lL3ejwhYbyaizg&cbp=12,125.7,,0,-7.46

Ian Silver ● 4788d

I think Mr Lawes means the view from the Eastbound (London) ramp. You are quite correct that you would not really see it from the westbound side.However from the eastbound side you can see the tops of the structures and at the critical point of the merge.

Michael Brandt ● 4788d

Oh dear, I really do give up.  The application, so I've read on the report, is for a static display, so the reference to "anything flashing red or white" isn't appropriate.The sliproad is one lane, no two lanes.  At the point the sliproad merges with the M4 the most western tower is at least 90 degrees to your left, to see it you'd be looking out the passenger window.Why, when I am on a one lane sliproad merging with traffic on my right, would I be concentrating on what is behind me on my left and is several hundreds metres away ?.Honestly, I am lost for words.  By all means complain about the decision, but at least do so on proper and fair arguments to give your concerns credibility.

Adam Beamish ● 4788d

Jim, I'm a qualified planner, I'm not a qualified transport consultant, I made that distinction earlier on in this thread and expressed my 'common sense' view, which you then proceeded to insult.But, going back to the application, the relevant 'experts' (Highways Agency etc.) were all consulted on this application and all raised no highway safety concerns, hence why such concerns did not form part of the Officers recommended reasons for refusal.Again, everything in the above paragraph are facts.  Yet again you try to insult me personally and my professional background.  I think you owe me a big apology, but I don't for one minute expect one.In your account about your journey, a journey which we both make plenty of times, you never once refer to glancing left.  At the bottom of the sliproad, the furthest west tower is at an angle of about 30 degrees to the drivers left, and is only glimpsed beyond buildings and vegetation.  As you proceed up the ramp, either the towers are obscured totally by vegetation, or they are least at a 60 degree angle to the drivers left.  Why would a driver be looking at  60 degree angle to their left (almost to the extent that they'd be looking out the passenger window) when the road is directly ahead and you are merging with traffic from the right ?.To be honest, your observations are so strange that I'm starting to wonder if you're confusing the Alfa Laval Tower (which is directly ahead when travelling up the sliproad) with the towers that are the subject of this thread ?

Adam Beamish ● 4788d

Thanks for the link to the report. It does seem pretty compelling in its condemnation and the lack of local support.It also mentions that Matt Harmer has stated that he is supportive of the application if the residents are - but the only resident response I could see was "this is my home and I object strongly to look like a block of offices built by a camera or computer firm". Has separate canvassing of opinion of residents taken place ?The report talks of referral to the Sustainable Development C'tee. Is this still to take place - or has the final decision been made ?

Tim Henderson ● 4788d

Adam, Jim is correct, you can see the tops of the towers as the junction merges and anything flashing red or white will be distracting as it is the point of where you use mirrors or glance back to  check for oncoming vehicles. If those oncoming vehicles drivers get distracted then there is little room for evasive action.This is already a major black spot on the M4, with many long distance drivers near journey's end.As for the Councillors. It's shameful. Cllr Curran was the chair of Griffin Residents and it was really a front for his cronies and pals. It claims to represent several streets and yet no-one ever hears from them, no notice of meetings or AGMs, It's a little closed club. Naturally, it has Labour leanings and the ward's Labour councillors use it for their own ends.  Nothing new here, typical of Brentfords schoolroom politics.Mr Curran though, holds way too many positions for a first time councillor,  He has very good attendance, but is poor at responding to the public, is not very bright and works clearly with some sort of agenda.Even if he is enthusiastic and well intentioned, it is hard to see how a novice (and his decisions clearly reflect this) can find the time to handle all these positions with full understanding and due diligence and hold down a day job.As a lifelong socialist, I am so ashamed of these manipulative comedians that I am losing all faith with politics in this so called democracy.It should not be for any councillor, whatever the party colours, to hold any cabinet position until they have proved themselves as ward councillors and got re-elected on the merit of their efforts.It's little wonder that we have such a poorly run authority in so many areasIf I had my way I would ban anyone who is a member of any political party from being involved with the council.  Make it genuine local people who genuinely care about the people they live amongst and the environs of the town they live in.

Michael Brandt ● 4788d

Jim Please keep going protesting about  this outrageous perverse decision by local Labour Cllrs. The Housing Lead Member Cllr Steve Curran  (who voted in favour) can and should  stop this matter proceeding. LBH Planning Officers provide pages of  reasons for refusing which were cynically and  blatantly ignored as were the eloquent views of numerous objectors. Given Cllr Curran's  prior knowledge and  participation in early negotiations and apparent tactit approval, should he have voted on this matter? Did he inform the Planning Committee of his participation/expressed views?  He may wish to clarify.I raise this as the planning application  mentions in the Neighbour and Comunity Consultation box 'A meeting with Hounslow Homes and L B Hounslow in attendance which 8 residents came to'Councillor Dhillon voted too but remarkably was not heard  to  openly declare an interest as a current Director of Hounslow Homes. LBH are now 'testing the market' not Hounslow Homes- again evidence of LBH's  control and ownership of this project and benefit.The following is the link to the Planning report http://democraticservices.hounslow.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=71349 I do ask forum readers to please read this document  and note the substantial evidence against and the credible groups who registered as objectors. LBH Officers were 100% against!This matter was dead, strangled and binned earlier this year until dear old Matt Harmer rescued it and asked for it to be placed before the Planning  Committee because 'a local residents association requested' it for reasons we are yet to establish. The speaker at the planning hearing is Vice Chair of HFTRA a LBH funded entity representing tenants/leaseholder  groups and Hounslow Homes (HH) who own/manage  the Tower.Cllr. Mel Collins was not present at the planning meeting. He is I understand in favour, smelling some spare cash that can be spread around Brentford on trivial projects despite the GLA Town Centre funding already received. Cllr Theo Dennison Chair of the Planning Committee voted against. He recently spoke at Council about the importance of local groups in the planning process. Mention is made in justification of the intrusive advertising sites adjacent to the raised section of the M4.LBH has vigorously opposed these eyesores and I support their action. Inspectors have on occasions over ruled LBH. They are as Jim mentions too bright a distraction and a continued risk to motorists. The applicants long term  intentions  are quite clear -namely to have every Brentford Tower smothered with unsightly advertisements. The planning application has pics of all the Towers shown have ads.A former Labour Cllr told me this proposal came up some years ago and was quickly slapped down.  Keep banging on Jim and Co.  Your voice should count!John

John Todd ● 4788d

"Do me a favour, go on Google Maps or Bing Maps, load up the birds eye view for this location and tell me, honestly, that if you're driving up the M4 sliproad the towers aren't anywhere near the drivers line of vision - they are at 90 degrees to the direction of movement, so there's absolutely no reason why a driver driving with due care and attention should be looking at the towers, because to do so they wouldn't be looking at the road ahead of them."This is, quite frankly Adam, amazing twaddle. And from a professional technician of planning too!I did a return trip tonight and I stand by my opinion.As one climbs the slip road... with the Motorway traffic lanes to one's right...it is absolutely wise to glance right to judge the flow of traffic "above"..to observe if it is stationary, slow or fast moving. Perhaps with red braking lights being activated etc...judgements about one's forward progress need to be made. And this is before one joins the main carriageway.At the point of glancing right..maybe many times.. and observing the Motorway traffic...at least 4 of the towers (the top 6 floors say) are in view...and would be a distraction if they supported neon or whatever lighting.In addition, the large "ROUTE" signposts just before the slip road are unlit and are an additional hazard. Over the past 45 years I have used that slip road often. Accidents have been many..as dented and damaged barriers have indicated.I suggest you jump in a car and do the real test.

Jim Lawes ● 4788d

Leaving driving distractions aside - these proposals are just tacky, this is Brentford NOT Las Vegas, cheap, nasty and just plain wrong. All for 30 pieces of silver it seems.

Vanessa Smith ● 4790d

Jim,You will note if you go back to the Officers report that there was no highway safety objection from any statutory consultee - I checked after I posted because common sense told me there's no way there could be a highway safety objection.Don't slag off my common sense, I have a different view and application of common sense to yours, respect that - in my time on this forum I've often thought to myself how you always try to come across as this charming bloke but as soon as anyone express a contrary view you turn on them in a rather snide way, and to be quite frank it's not a quality I like.Do me a favour, go on Google Maps or Bing Maps, load up the birds eye view for this location and tell me, honestly, that if you're driving up the M4 sliproad the towers aren't anywhere near the drivers line of vision - they are at 90 degrees to the direction of movement, so there's absolutely no reason why a driver driving with due care and attention should be looking at the towers, because to do so they wouldn't be looking at the road ahead of them.That isn't anything to do with common sense, that's a fact.  Not trying to get involved in an argument but makes my blood boil when firstly someone insults my own personal application of common sense, and secondly has the temerity to base that insult on something that isn't even factually correct.  What a nice bloke you are...not.

Adam Beamish ● 4790d

"Whilst I'm not a traffic or visual distraction expert, common sense tells me any suggestion that an advert comprising a company name on the top of a 25 odd storey block isn't going to distract a driver on a road 20 odd storeys below" says Adam.Well Adam your common sense isn't reliable then!Yesterday, driving towards London on the Great West Road and passing Carville Hall Park, I chose to go up the slip road to join the "M4". One has to be very careful there ..joining the nearside carriageway with it's fast approaching traffic coming from the Airport.  It's at that point that one is seeking images from the mirror and from over one's shoulder..and believe it or not the peak of the Towers is part of the vision there.How can you approve of distracting advertisements at that delicate line of vision.

Jim Lawes ● 4790d

According to a newspaper reporter who has been to visit the site, only a small percentage of residents speak english and are on the electoral role.I suspect they have not got a clue what's happening and those that know best have spoken for them.They are the least affected as it right over thier heads and cannot even see it from the site.The worst affected are those in South Ealing / Gunnersbury and Kew /West Brentford who have a whole view of the blocks

Anthony Waller ● 4791d

A useful post John.  I asked a similar question on this thread some days back and nobody has been forthcoming with any information, hopefully you will have more luck with getting an answer than I did.

Phil Andrews ● 4791d

I suspect the only people who may be able to scupper this planning decision are the Hounslow Homes tenants and leaseholders in the properties concerned. Given that changes to rent and leasehold charging policies a few years ago meant that residents living in these blocks are charged for exclusive services such as caretaking and security, I suspect a legal challenge would demonstrate that any income derived from rooftop advertising would have to be used to offset these resident charges, providing no net benefit to Hounslow Homes.I am aware of leaseholders in a private high rise being asked if they would appprove a mobile phone mast on the basis that the income would offset their monthly charges, and I would be curious to know how Hounslow Homes might construct lease clauses that got round this.

John Connelly ● 4791d

Don't forget Anthony that I am a local resident - I do have a life outside of planning !.  And undoubtedly sometimes there's a clash - only in the last week as a development site next to where I live has started to take shape, I have felt sadness and annoyance at the loss of vegetation and trees which formed the boundary between the site and where I live.  No doubt with my professional hat on I'd point to an arboricultural report which says that the trees were of low value/merit etc., but with my personal hat on I think it's a great shame that they've gone.I take your point about distraction but, again from a non-technical perspective, everything around us when we're driving is a distraction, e.g. another vehicle, a pretty girl, a house, an animal etc, etc.  It's not like every road we drive on is straight with brick walls on either side and no other visual stimulus.  Thus as drivers we are required to deal/cope with distractions.Of course there's a reasonable limit to such distractions -  it would be hard to argue that a huge, illuminated, constantly changing (i.e. every few seconds) flashing display at the same height as the carriageway and next to a major motorway wouldn't cause an unacceptable level of distraction to motorists, but I don't feel this applies to the proposed signs on top of the towers.I haven't actually looked at the Committee Report yet so am curious to see whether highway safety concerns were part of their basis for recommending refusal.

Adam Beamish ● 4791d

Your insights are quite informative but also rather depressing as it reveals such so many tiers slanting away from the ability to object objectively from the point of view of ordinary residents. As for distraction, well you have really answered your own point. As a former media buyer in advertising, we paid top dollar for sites that...distract. Maximum exposure is imperitive.  If it fails - you fail and your fired. That's the business.No advertiser would be interested in a site - even for free if it did not have the ability to distract to a high ratio. It's as simple as that,Everyone knows distraction has safety implications. It is why mobile phones are banned whilst driving as is eating drinking and smoking. All are done but it is illegal on the basis of distraction.I gather the advice from planning officers was not to proceed with permission and it was councillors who voted for, purely in the interests of a crock of gold.Which will probably all be lost in a liability case when an accident occurs

Anthony Waller ● 4791d

I am given to understand that somehow - this application mysteriously circumnavigated the local area planning committee, whether or not that would be a reason to try for a JR I know not, it would normally have gone via that route.

Vanessa Smith ● 4791d

From personal/professional experience, the highway safety argument isn't that strong, and I've been part of Teams acting on behalf of clients who have, including recently, secured advert consents on appeal for large structures and associated adverts close to the M4, having successfully demonstrated that such adverts do not results in conditions prejudicial to highway safety.Whilst I'm not a traffic or visual distraction expert, common sense tells me any suggestion that an advert comprising a company name on the top of a 25 odd storey block isn't going to distract a driver on a road 20 odd storeys below.  Thus to me the key issues here are far more visual amenity related.  As I said earlier, I don't particular have a strong view either way, and I do wonder if it wasn't for the Council's own ownership of the blocks whether there would be such an uproar.  I would however agree that the implications of this decision are considerable for Officers, as other future applicants will use it as a justification to support other proposals, although were I an Officer I would simply stick to my guns and if the application ended up at appeal at least Officers could show they have been consistent.Just to go back also, there is no third party right of appeal to anyone, be they individuals, residents associations etc, the only recourse is an application to judicially review the decision on the grounds that the decision making process was not properly followed (i.e. a judicial review cannot relate to the planning merits, but only the procedure).

Adam Beamish ● 4791d

I think you'll find it's a bit more scientific.Research results showed that signage placed within the field of view of a vehicles windscreen and angled towards the road was not any more distracting than a large road sign.The problem arises from illuminated and animated signs and those that are overly large or bright and just out out the drivers field of view.The other issue is new variable intensity signs which again are animated and have been found to be extremely distracting to drivers when directly in the field of view.There are examples of both of these on the A4. One has been removed because it was fiund to be a cause of accidents at the Junction of North End Road, West Kensington and has since been restricted from using red amber and green and the intensity has had to be reduced by 90%.The others are along the flyover and anyone who uses it will know that at times they can be very distracting either by brightness or content.The worst aspect is what this says about Brentford. A dumping ground and not a toss given about it's environs.All those responsible for allowing this who hold office really must be voted out at the first opportunity as it is a huge show of contempt against the people of Brentford

Michael Brandt ● 4792d

I think that's known as having your cake and eating it, depending on who is making the application.

Vanessa Smith ● 4792d

When I was on the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee we were advised that some motoring body (can't remember which one) had stated there was evidence to show that roadside adverts did not distract motorists.  This being the case I never really saw the point of them.  Surely if nobody looks at them it defeats the object somewhat?

Phil Andrews ● 4792d

Quite right, The distractions are already bad from visual distraction to light distracton.The one at North End Road on th A$ caused many small accidents and was particularly bad and was removed after excessive insurance claims which eventually got passed to H&F council.Several motoring bodies including the IAM have warned consistently about distractions on roads with limited space and this is the most stupid yet as it is right at the point that J1 filters onto the flyover.Expect many accidents and then there literally will be blood on the hands of those very very foolish councillors.

Anthony Waller ● 4792d

Surely motorists should be encouraged to keep their eyes on the road...not be distracted by adverts along such a busy section of the "M4". Not only is that section of carriageway narrow...with slip roads adjacent...but has a sharp bend (in Motorway terms) as well.The flashing images of scantilly clad women on those advertising structures approaching the Chiswick Flyover are a joke too far.If the Ads on the Brentford Towers were for companies like "Bharat Skips" or the Hounslow West Pole Dancing Club" well that's an understandable proposal from the Council!!

Jim Lawes ● 4792d

I wrote to both Ruth Cadbury, Matt Harmer and Mary Macleod  about this matter asking them to confirm their position. I have had responses from Ms Cadbury and Mr Harmer which I am asking them to post here.

Martin Hewlett ● 4793d

D*ckheads - every one! Shouldn't be allowed out on their own in public.

Vanessa Smith ● 4794d

Ruth Cadbury, Steve Curran, Ajmer Dhillon, Gopal Dhillon, Darshan Grewal and Sohan Sangha.  As per my earlier post.

Phil Andrews ● 4794d

In many places abroad, this kind of thing indicates neighbourhoods of poor quality, high crime and usually red light districts. Places that you speed through with haste (unless you are Hugh Grant)  Jamacia Ave near JFK in New York springs to mind. Not a nice place to be at night.This will be how Brentford will be seen. It is bad enough already and so far I don't see any benefits reaped locally from the existing array of hideous signage.If, as has happened recently in the US a sign catches fire or gets weather damaged and god forbid causes a fatality or injury and this is not uncommon in third world site which I presume LBH wish to emmulate, who will be brought to book?Presumably the Councillors who ignored advice and voted for it.Names please.

Anthony Waller ● 4794d

Yes, I know the rules Vanessa.  And I also know how it works in practice.  If there is a perceived party benefit to be had from taking a particular decision there is no need for a whip.

Phil Andrews ● 4794d

"This is an inevitable consequence of the system they represent.  Whether it be "control freak Ruth" or "good ol' Matt", the party ultimately owns their souls and they are through their own choice powerless to act or think independently."Not true - there can be no whip on planning matters as you should know - and I do think you can blame individuals in the light of that, can't the residents association appeal against this decision?

Vanessa Smith ● 4794d

Putting the planning merits or otherwise of this scheme to one side for a moment, I would be interested to learn from Matt, Ruth or any of its other supporters precisely how the residents of the towers will benefit from the envisaged advertising revenue.Will they receive a reduction in their rents or service charges?  Will there be funding available for the community centre or for estate-based projects which will encourage cohesion and participation?  Will they be given a one-off Brucie Bonus with their next Hounslow Homes mailshot or a free ticket for a family day trip to Margate?Or will this revenue merely end up bolstering the already substantial reserves of the Housing Revenue Account, viewed possibly as an act of replenishment in the wake of the Rainbow Project and Project Empower?I think that at the very least Brentford residents are entitled to know how tenants are expected to benefit from their sacrifice.

Phil Andrews ● 4794d

The cllr who voted against were cllr Sheila o'reilly cllr felicity barwood cllr Paul jabbal cllr Samantha Davies and cllr Theo dennison

Gill Hutchison ● 4794d

I would like to know who voted against this abomination.  Also do the minutes of the meeting give details of why some members chose to support this.  I can only assume that Matt Harmer and Ruth Cadbury wont be living in Brentford for much longer otherwise why would they do this to their own environment.

Patricia Nicholas ● 4794d

I don't think any of them live in tower blocks Kevin, but those who live anywhere near Heston or Cranford may have given themselves permission to build one in their back yard.

Phil Andrews ● 4794d

Obviously it's their personal choice as I believe that most of them live in these blocks! LOL!

Kevin Farnan ● 4794d

Not at all Vanessa, just trying to point out the irony of your comment, that's all. I've lost count of the amount of times I've been tarred with the brush of being a fascist simply because I am a supporter of the ICG. Those who know me well enough know that that couldn't be further from the truth.

Andrew Sibley ● 4794d

Morally undoubtedly, legally no.  Herein lies the difference between the party politician and the community councillor - the former is your representative whereas the latter is your delegate.  Or to put it another way the former serves and is answerable to their party, the latter serves and is answerable to their community.Party politicians believe they are mandated to make decisions on our behalf.  What is especially unfortunate in this case is that we are dealing with a mindset that believes the electorate does not properly understand what it wants, and ought therefore to leave decision making to those who know best.  "Best" in this case being these hideous illuminations.There is no point in singling out and blaming individuals.  This is an inevitable consequence of the system they represent.  Whether it be "control freak Ruth" or "good ol' Matt", the party ultimately owns their souls and they are through their own choice powerless to act or think independently.

Phil Andrews ● 4794d

LOL.

Andrew Sibley ● 4794d

Are they not obliged to answer their electorate? Isn't this the much lauded transparency of local government that Labour was so keen to promote?

Michael Brandt ● 4794d

The names I have been given since my last posting are Ruth Cadbury, Steve Curran, Ajmer Dhillon, Gopal Dhillon, Darshan Grewal and Sohan Sangha.I hope somebody will correct me if my information is wrong.

Phil Andrews ● 4794d

I wouldn't discourage anybody from writing to complain, but I don't think there is any mechanism for reversing a planning decision unless it can be demonstrated that the correct procedure wasn't followed.

Phil Andrews ● 4794d

The voting was 6 to 5 - no names in the newspaper. These signs are apparently going to be 7.5 metres high by 18 metres wide, the more you hear the worse it sounds. Matt Harmer wrote to the planning cttee. asking them to approve - what is he on?

Vanessa Smith ● 4794d

As a first step in registering your opposition and reversing this decision, I suggest you all write to Ruth Cadbury, Matt Harman and Mary MacLeod and let them know your views. Brentford seems to take one step forward and two steps back. I really don't see how this will benefit the town at all.

Martin Hewlett ● 4794d

Do we know the names of the councillors who voted in favour of this application, and of those who voted against it?Was it a clean party divide, or was it a mixed bag so to speak?

Phil Andrews ● 4794d

Don't tar everyone with the same brush Andrew, although it seems to be what you do.

Vanessa Smith ● 4795d

Vanessa, Labour's excuse for loosing control of the council in 2006 was that the electorate did not understand what they were voting for. The same clearly applied in 2010 when they re-gained control!

Andrew Sibley ● 4795d

One lady in today's Chronicle has described these planned neon signs as Brentford being "lit up like a brothel". I just can't believe that we have elected members stupid enough to go along with this farce. To fly in the face of sensible advice from their own officers just smacks of arrogance. I was going to say what are they thinking? - but they obviously weren't.

Vanessa Smith ● 4795d

Something sadly notable is how the erstwhile Cllr Harmer seems to have changed his spots. Is he being bullied by the likes of Cadbury and Curran?Are they being lied to and manipulated by officers?He would normally be the first to oppose such things.It's notable that his newsletter omits many of the issues that locals in his patch are very concerned about.Not the councillor we have been used to over the last few years.I think this is a hugely reckless attack on this town and really does question whether several local councillors are fit and proper to represent the local people of this district and can no longer be trusted to do so. So in a way I think Anthony is right. All these issues need to be remembered and brought up at election time and prospective councillors need to be crystal clear about thier intentions once elected.

Michael Brandt ● 4795d

I am not quite with Anthony but agree that this decision is very odd and those who voted for it should be asked why they decided to ignore all the advice against. Typically votes against advice are to curry favour with voters who are Nimby's.In this case its to the financial benefit of HH, a council owned subsidiary. Hence Planning committee have voted in their own interest. Nothing new there, S106 contributions have meant that councils benefit from approving Planning Applications....and it has worked. In this case I am amazed that approval has been given to something so out of place with existing policy. A bad decision IMHO

Iain Muir ● 4795d

Each and every councillor and advisor on this committee needs to be named and shamed.I am seriously thinking of donating my projection business to project their names onto some of Brentfords buildings for all to see and remember.These political and ego driven idiots are wrecking this borough and this town in particular.They must all be voted out and those who are unelected, sacked.They are moronic vandals. No other words are suitable.

Anthony Waller ● 4795d

Wait to see what happens with the old Performance Cars site on the corner of Windmill Road.The timber faced "tower" is solely for the purpose of affixing advertising visible from the M4 and making AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE.

Ian Silver ● 4796d

AdamI hear what you are saying and indeed I have sat on planning committees which have determined applications from the local authority, albeit relatively uncontentious ones such as the demolition of derelict garages and suchlike.  But has such an apparent conflict of interests ever been tested legally?

Phil Andrews ● 4796d

Speaking of advertising along the M4, has anyone heard how the decision to remove "The Torch" is progressing ?

Tim Henderson ● 4796d

As Asif says, the only challenge would be by way of making an application to the courts seeking a judicial review of the decision to grant the application.  No third party right of appeal exists, so not a matter which can be appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.Nothing unusual about a Council determining applications relating to land it owns, all perfectly legal and commonplace, because, quite simply the planning legislation requires every application to be determined having regard to relevant development plans and all other material planning considerations.  Inevitably organisations like Councils have a plethora of different 'arms' which can't always work in tandem with one another.I would concur however that generally planning is in a rather strange place at the moment.  As I harp on frequently, national government seems to be trying to put pressure on local government to deal with everything, whilst at the same time cutting resources etc.  Ultimately as a consequence I find that generally the level of service I receive from Councils to be rather poor.Personally speaking, I can't say the adverts bother me one way or the other, even though I'll be able to see at least a couple of them from where I live.  The decision does however bemuse me given the background of the Council generally being very resistant to advertising within the M4 corridor.

Adam Beamish ● 4796d

The planning section at Hounslow and indeed the Environment department, of which it is a part, is certainly way out of control, as I have noted on this forum on many previous occasions.  ICG councillors during the 2006-2010 administration fought a long, protracted and very lonely battle with them and recorded some successes but sadly the 2010 elections intervened to prevent us from finishing the job.In this instance however it doesn't seem to have been the department that was driving this, indeed if Vanessa is correct it expressed concerns.There is though another issue with this particular application that stands out irrespective of its own merits or demerits, and that is the fact that the Council is both the applicant (Hounslow Homes is wholly owned by LBH) and the judge of the application.  This must surely present a conflict of interests?

Phil Andrews ● 4796d

My recent unfortunate experience of the planning dept is that they will lie to get their way and will do whatever to cover up their incompetance.Councillors simply acquiesce, it seems.Unfortunately these are not grounds for Appeal to the Inspectorate and I am considering legal advice.Can't help the feeling that I am on a hiding to nothing though.

Asif Rana ● 4796d

Planning applications are supposed to be decided on planning grounds, that I believe was the gist of the advice to the committee members. The question is - is it challengeable and who could/would be able to appeal  against the decision to a planning inspector?

Vanessa Smith ● 4796d

Maybe that is the disadvantage of buying ex-local authority, whether on right to buy or after being sold on.  Amazingly unfair contract don't you think? If the roof needed money spent on it to fix it, private owners would receive a demand, yet when the roof generates income, they can't enjoy the advantage the Council is giving to block the night the sky with neon signs at huge profit.  Profit is what this is all about, after all.

Sarah Felstead ● 4796d

I think you're probably right, but won't it look tacky?

Vanessa Smith ● 4796d

I'm guessing, but I doubt whether any revenue would be divided up amongst the blocks in question, and I certainly wouldn't expect the residents of the blocks to have any input into how it is spent because the mechanism doesn't exist for that to happen.  I imagine any funds would be added into the general pot of the HRA (Housing Revnue Account).

Phil Andrews ● 4797d

I wonder how they will divide up the revenue from the advertising on each block if there are private owners in a block?Surely each block is funded and financed and managed individually (costs for external window fitting for example isn’t shared by people in another block, I assume) so any revenue should be kept for the blocks use, not for financial gain by an organisation to use elsewhere?What financial implications will this have for private owners?  How will it affect the maintenance charges – can private owners look forward to huge reductions from the revenue generated by their blocks management company?

Sarah Felstead ● 4797d