Forum Topic

Advertising on Boulton House, Brentford

On a previous thread I committed to providing an update on the position regarding the application for advertising consent on Boulton House approved by the then Sustainable Development Committee in June.I can confirm that it will be discussed again at the recently renamed planning committee 11 October.  However, because of the nature of the report containing as it does Counsel's opinion and other legal advice, I have consented to a request for the issue to be dealt with in a confidential or 'Part II' session at the end of the otherwise public meeting - this is because the public disclosure of information in the report might prejudice the Council's position in respect of an application for a judicial review of the original decision.There will be a non-confidential minute of any decision taken and again, I will provide a further update here at that time.  Apologies to all who have taken an interest in this issue and would have wished to see and hear the discussion in full.

Theo Dennison ● 4955d31 Comments

For picture see:http://www.flickr.com/photos/brighton/6829263178/ said David.Yes it's a splendid picture by Forum poster Jim Linwood.

Jim Lawes ● 4927d

In what way do you believe Ed doesn't listen to his constituents?

Phil Andrews ● 4927d

That's all well and good but having due regard to the legislation seems to me to be a primary consideration. Just because local residents may protest about something doesn't mean to say that the planning committee can just reject it willy nilly. If only things were as and dried as you imagine them to be.

Vanessa Smith ● 4927d

and started to elect Councillors to the Planning Committee who can be trusted to look after the local environment and listen to local residents.Unlike Councillor Ed Mayne.

David Giles ● 4928d

Fancy asking the only people who will not be able to sit and see the advertising from their homes, if they want it on their block!  This is one for a policy decision as it changes the character of the area.

Sarah Felstead ● 4929d

What is the name for a political system in which a handful of politicos go against the wishes of the majority?JL.

Jim Linwood ● 4929d

"We can only now hope that we will hear no more of this stupid, crass idea, and that common sense will prevail."Yes!

Sarah Felstead ● 4929d

I agree with Councillor Samantha Davies (Conservative, Turnham Green Ward) and former Labour councillor Vanessa Smith. This proposal should never have been supported by the London Borough of Hounslow Planning Comnmittee.Thank goodness the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew intervened to bring Hounslow Council to its senses. Well done Kew  !Boulton House is the tallest building in the Brentford Towers estate just to the West of Chiswick. It is 23 storeys high.For picture see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/brighton/6829263178/Let's hope Hounslow Council Planning Committee will squash this sort of thing once and for all.

David Giles ● 4929d

Ever since I set foot in west London, I hated those vile looking buildings. When I first saw them they reminded me of Ronan Point.Who got the bribe, and can they now be blown high sky please?

George Knox ● 4929d

We can only now hope that we will hear no more of this stupid, crass idea, and that common sense will prevail.

Vanessa Smith ● 4929d

Theo,Interesting (if this type of thing rocks your boat).  Based on the press coverage the Royal Botanical Gardens have never applied for a JR, yet your posting implies they did apply - generally I find the media inaccurate when it comes to planning matters but clarification would be appreciated.Personally speaking, I struggle with this proposed 'quashing' (not really an appropriate word as the decision notice granting consent was never issued).  As I said before the decision to approve was taken following a detailed Officer report and also legal advice at the committee confirming that financial considerations couldn't be taken into account (for the reasons I advised).With the debatable exception of one of the reasons (the fact that 100% of the tenants supported the application) for the overturn quoted in the minutes, all of the reasons for that overturn relate to subjective visual amenity considerations.  The only other consideration which can be taken into account when assessing advert consent applications, namely highway safety, isn't an issue (however much certain posters would try to argue otherwise) as the relevant statutory consultees have no objections on highway safety grounds.Which leaves me to deduce that the sole reason why the Council is 'quashing' this committee resolution is because one of the five reasons for the original Member overturn isn't a material consideration.Now whilst I'm not saying that is necessarily wrong, one wonders if the same stance would have been taken had Joe Bloggs complained about the decision, as opposed to the Botanical Gardens.  Ans secondly, if what I deduce is correct and essentially this whole saga is the result of Members considering something that isn't a material planning consideration, it really doesn't fill anyone with much faith in the Planning Committee, does it, especially in the light the recent investigation into Councillor M. Gill ?.

Adam Beamish ● 4930d

At its meeting on 11 October, the Planning Committee asked Richard Gruet (the Council's senior legal officer) to seek agreement with the Royal Botanical Gardens Kew regarding their application for judicial review of the permission for an illuminated sign on the roof of Boulton House.The Council has now agreed a joint draft consent order which has been sent to the court for approval in which the Council accepts that the way the decision was made justifies the court ordering quashing the consent for the advertising sign.We await a formal approval of the proposed quashing and if as expected that goes through, the Council will consider again whether consent for an illuminated sign should be granted or refused.The decision of the planning committee was taken in a part II confidential session of the committee at the end of its last meeting - the reason for it being taken without the press and public being present was because privileged advice from counsel was being considered by the committee and the Council's senior legal officer advised that publication of the decision might vitiate the Council's position and ability to reach an agreement.

Theo Dennison ● 4930d

We understand Theo.. but whether Boulton House will!

Jim Lawes ● 4948d

Planning Committee met tonight and all members of the committee accepted the advice of the Assistant Director Corporate Governance (Borough solicitor) not to reveal their decision while he undertakes actions on their behalf.A further update will follow as soon as circumstances allow.

Theo Dennison ● 4948d

Yes Keith I think that's the point we are all in agreement about.

Vanessa Smith ● 4951d

I am really sorry this has to be a confidential, Part II item, I am sure you would have otherwise had a very interesting outing to the committee on Thursday - I will post as soon as the meeting is over.

Theo Dennison ● 4951d

But it doesn't only affect the tenants.It will affect all of us by being an unwanted eyesore and will hardly endear the area to prospective new property buyers.It is also an extremely tacky idea imo.

Keith Iddon ● 4952d

I believe that you are correct Paul, there was definitely some financial sweetener for tenants talked about. I really think anyone who goes along with this has lost their marbles, it is a travesty.

Vanessa Smith ● 4952d

I am pretty sure though that when the Brentford Cllrs responded on this matter it was stated that the tenents would receive a reduction in their service charges or it would be looked in to anyway

Paul Fisher ● 4952d

Admittedly the legislation has changed somewhat in the last year or so and Section 143 of the Localism Act 2011 does allow defined financial benefits to be taken into account in the determination of planning applications "where material to the application".In this specific case however, there is one huge issue which prevents financial benefits from been considered, and that is that Section 143 is only applicable to applications for planning permission, not for express advertisement consent (the Boulton House application was for the latter).Indeed the Officer's committee report makes absolutely no reference to Section 143/local finance considerations, presumably for exactly that reason, and if you read the minutes of the SDC meeting the Legal Officer also confirmed this point to Members.Hence why I believe it may be difficult for any legal challenge to succeed - Officers made it clear that financial considerations were not relevant, and the reasons Members cited for supporting the application broadly focused upon visual amenity considerations, which are material.Whether I actually personally believe those reasons to be genuine is another matter altogether as my own hunch, purely based on a reading of the minutes and the background, is that some Members disregarded the legal advice entirely.

Adam Beamish ● 4952d

Maybe we should just get used to the idea of stacking roofs with this sort of advertising?Just imagine the rows upon rows of advertising hoardings on houses under the flight path – they could be laid out in rows like dominos.  And the high rises being built along the M4 flyover – we could save a fortune on street lighting if the angles of the lights are aimed at the height of people’s bedroom windows.  They might even squeeze a beacon on top of Gillette’s clock tower reflecting an advert onto the clouds and night sky, the sky may well be the limit!  :-(

Sarah Felstead ● 4952d

Did he specify what form these 'benefits' would take I wonder? Sounds a bit vague unless he can flesh out the claim with some facts.

Keith Iddon ● 4952d

Course it does, and I was referring to the financial aspect, I seem to recall benefit to the residents as one of the reasons given by some idiot councillor banging on about why this should go ahead. You can't even begin to imagine how bloody awful this is going to look.

Vanessa Smith ● 4952d

I assume you mean it's 'cobblers' that they claim there is no financial gain.If there isn't why are they going ahead with it? I really don't understand why they would offer free advertising.It also makes a mockery of the carbon footprint guff.

Keith Iddon ● 4952d

That's cobblers if you'll pardon me, wasn't one of the reasons given some supposed benefit to the residents? I think Hounslow ought to be ashamed of themselves for even considering this - it would be an abomination.

Vanessa Smith ● 4952d

If there is no financial gain to LBH, what is the point of having these hoardings.Especially in view of the incresed carbon footprint or whatever it's bloody well called?

Keith Iddon ● 4953d

Adam says that financial benefit to the Council is a non-material consideration !

Tim Henderson ● 4953d

Money talks and hang the consequences...

Keith Iddon ● 4953d

Where will it all end? One tower..then another one etc etc.

Jim Lawes ● 4953d

From the West London River Group website:Hounslow Council’s Sustainable Development Committee [sic] approved controversial plans forilluminated advertising on the top of 23-storey Boulton House¸Green DragonLane, Brentford, TW8 0DA. Their own planning department wrote: “Theproposed advertisement would be harmful to the appearance of Boulton House andwould have a significant adverse impact on the regeneration, character andappearance of Brentford, as well as the setting of a number of significant andimportant local, national and international landmarks. The proposal would havea significant adverse impact on amenity. Refusal has been strongly recommended.”This objection was backed by numerous civic amenities,English Heritage, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew and the London Borough of Richmond.However Hounslow Homes, who was the applicant, was successful. The height ofthe signage will vary between 2m and 7.5m above the existing roof, and up to 18mwide. Hounslow Homes is wholly owned by London Borough of Hounslow.This permission also clears the way for applications on fourmore of the remaining towers.The planning report noted that the proposal “is consideredto be harmful to the setting of the Thames, and contrary to the ThamesLandscape Strategy and policies within the Unitary Development Plan and LondonPlan. The illuminated signage will be particularly harmful on overcast days,early morning and at dusk when there is less light. The illuminatedadvertisement will draw attention to the height and prominence of the towers [alreadyconsidered to be a visual blight], reducing the quality of the skyline withinthis sensitive environment.” The proposal is contrary to the Thames Strategy,the London Plan and the Unitary Development Plan.ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooWOW! the signage will vary between 2m and 7.5m above the existing roof, and up to 18m wide!.

Jim Lawes ● 4953d

Inevitable that it would be a Part II item - couldn't not be given that Counsel's advice will presumably relate to the possibility of the Council's decision to approve being subject to judicial review, and provide legal opinion on whether, in making the decision which they did, Members either failed to consider relevant material considerations or gave weight to non-material considerations (such as the financial benefit to the Council) - and I suspect it is the latter that is the main 'issue' because otherwise I cannot see how an application to seek judicial review around a subjective visual amenity issue would be successful.Very unusual course of action all in all, a decision is made and then the Council are (in my personal view) running scared of the Royal Botanical Gardens.

Adam Beamish ● 4955d