Forum Topic

Double Standards?

I note that the planning applications in Clifden Road and Hamilton Road were thrown out by the committee as reported on TW8.The grounds are identical to the grounds of opposition for the propose and granted developments in Lateward Road and Brook road South.Both these streets are also in a conservation area and the designs are far from compatible with the existing structures.Furthermore there are a number of infrastructure issues which also got ignored.The Hamilton road development would have been totally invisible to the streetscene, I can't comment on the Clifden road one.But both these developments will be 100% visible .There is one significant difference.With Brook Road and Lateward road the developers partner is ...Hounslow CouncilThe others were entirely private applications.Same conservation area, same objections and issues. But clearly complete double standards.So clearly the clients for both private developments have more than grounds to appeal.

Anthony Waller ● 4769d19 Comments

Thank you for such a clear and open declaration and explanation.No doubt any links to organisations that by pure nature are in business primarily, and then in the business of persuading planning committees will lead to speculation and it is not party specific.If you read some of the claims on the Forty Shillings website, it does not help matters and certainly not for people elected as councillors, like yourself.Indigo, a similar organisation have rapidly changed their website removing a lot of detail which revealed similar activities and showed photographs of employees who were well recognised on the political scene.This is no doubt because of an investigation by the Daily Telegraph which clearly got rather too close for comfort.But I do take on board your willingness to be public and clear and also the references to the changes in planning meetings. That does kind of explain partly why the two applications with the same basic objections have had an opposite decision.The inability of ordinary residents who are neither political or expert to nonetheless input well researched objections and details certainly was prevalent at the first committee. Until minutes are published, from what you say, the recent committee appears a whole world apart.It is also known from the Reynard Mills episode that one councillor who has also made a declaration of possible conflicting interest, chose to take a back seat in matters as a consequence. But this also has a bad affect as effectively a local elected representative gets neutralised.As Adam did explain, whilst a very difficult area to deal with, the public perception is even more difficult and in the end clear and open explanation goes a long way.I truly wish this had been the case several months ago. Thank you for the open reply.

Michael Brandt ● 4753d

MichaelIn my declaration of interests, I have recorded an association with Forty Shillings because they are a planning consultancy and they asked me if I would be prepared to work with them and I am.  However, I am not employed by them, I am not a planning consultant or lobbyist and I have not been paid anything by them or their clients and I have not worked for them or for their clients.  If or when I do, full details will appear in my declaration of interests.In addition, if at any point they were involved in any application relating to our borough or with a client with projects in our borough, I would not be involved with it, advise on it or speak to them about it – and I would, in keeping with my public declaration, take no part in decision-making on it either as Chair of the Planning Committee or as a councillor.  My ‘fiscal’ ties to them amount to a coffee and a pint of lager bought for me at informal meetings with their founder, Wyn Evans, which I have every expectation of returning at some point.As Adam points out, perception is important, so I declared the existence of this link as soon as it occurred and in addition, I registered with the UK Public Affairs Council which sets standards for lobbyists and lobbying activity.  I am not going to pretend that links to lobbyists and developers are not considered murky or that they do not occur.  I have, though only before my election, worked with both but never at the expense of any public obligations and always on the basis that they are openly declared.  I am not aware that Forty Shillings has ever done anything to justify having its integrity or reputation questioned.AnthonyWhen I was elected Chair of the Planning Committee last May, I explained that I would make it my mission to ensure that every resident, amenity society and councillor would have the right and opportunity to be heard on planning matters - up to and including the right to speak, lobby and share their views with members of the planning committee.  That hasn’t been the case before, but while I am Chair it is the rule.  Meetings are a tad longer and a lot less dull but I think that decisions have been better and certainly better informed as a result.Applicants and objectors can seek advice from planning officers, their councillors or me – and many have done so without prejudice to the decisions that are then made.  Councillors exercise their own discretion in this and you are free to judge them on their response.  All councillors are required to declare any interests and contacts at each meeting – failure to do so leaves them open to investigation and sanction.The Lateward Road and Brooks Road South applications were dealt with before I was a member of Planning Committee, so I cannot explain how they were approved.  The membership of the committee can and does change every year, the committee is not whipped and members are free to approve or reject applications as they each feel fit – hopefully solely on their merits.  While consistency can happen it is not mandatory either from one meeting to the next and certainly not from one year to another.I think the decision-making on 7 March was both clear and sound: the officer recommendation to approve the Hamilton and Clifden Road applications failed to address the conservation area issue adequately and the arguments of residents were compelling.  You are of course at liberty to differ and the decisions themselves are open to appeal.  However, in my own view, it would be foolish to base any appeal on the prior approval of the Lateward Road and Brooks Road South applications.Finally, as far as I know, no members of any party were involved with any of the applications that are the subject of this thread.  Cllr Cadbury does live on Clifden Road but declared her interest and withdrew from all consideration of the Clifden Road applications.  There are as many Labour members on all four streets.I am no friend of special interests or cliques – party or otherwise.  If for one moment I thought they were involved in these decisions, I would have confronted them myself at the meeting.  If you have any evidence to the contrary, however slight, then please report any councillor involved to the Council’s monitoring officer richard.gruet@hounslow.gov.uk RegardsTheo

Theo Dennison ● 4753d

Thats the first bit of clarity and sense in ages.I think there is a need for several streets to join up and protect this conservation area more vigorously and draw it out of being a party political footballI wonder though, why there are such differences for meetings of the same committee.For the objections for Brook Road and Lateward roadOrdinary residents turned up but only one was allowed to speak and set out various objections. No way was it suggested pictures, diagrams and powerpoint presentations could be made. 5 minutes and that's your lot and anyone else who attempted to speak was threatened with ejection. Even notes to councillors were refused.Consequently, a large number of residents feel completely let down and deserted by their elected ward councillors who, because they were all for the proposals, simply would not assist first time objectors. Incidentally, this is a tactic that companies like Forty Shillings and Indigo actually advise to clients.So it's understandable that residents, me included, feel that something is not quite right when we hear of a near identical series of objections being accepted and permission refused when six months ago, a conservation area.The applicant put up a very poor presentation full of flaws and brushed over facts, the council survey claimed there is no such parking difficulties in Lateward or surrounding streets and details  presented by the planning officer  had items removed - like an electricity sub station and a stormwater relief system. Anyone trying to point this out was simply silenced.Yet not one concern was taken seriously. Including the conservation area and the awful design of the new houses which will look like a gold tooth in a row of pearly whites!So this is what it comes to. Unless ordinary residents can put up a slick polished powerpoint presentation and aided clearly by experts, we have no chance to put any sort of objection that will be taken seriously.Well done to you but we need to band together to stop this recurring although despite the huge logistical costs LBH and it's developer chums are determined to press ahead with two developments that will never make any sort of financial sense as the ground preparations alone will far exceed the return on the properties which will be sold.

Michael Brandt ● 4754d

Have some of you suddenly changed into David Icke-esque clones and thus immediately jump to wild conclusions inspired by conspiracy theories ?!.  Get a grip !.Regarding minutes, it's perfectly normal these days for minutes of Council committee meetings (and remember that there's many other Council meetings apart from planning committees) to not be published for weeks afterwards.  Primarily due to resource issues.  There's also the potential issue of the minutes being published when they haven't actually been signed off by all of the Committee members as being an accurate record of the meeting.As for the whole lobbying thing, I've already explained that.  It's something that if I was a Councillor I too wouldn't be comfortable with purely because of the importance I personally place on 'public perception'.

Adam Beamish ● 4754d

I am one of the Clifden Road residents who opposed this.  I got involved when a neighbour came round with a petition 4 days before the planning meeting.  I then helped with raising awareness and was in the audience at the planning meeting.  Here’s my take on all this:A couple of neighbours spotted the planning application and sent their comments opposing it to the Hounslow Planners.They put together a petition which lots of neighbours signed.They put together a power point presentation which set out a thorough, forensic case of why the application was (a) in contravention of St Paul’s Conservation Area rules and (b) would reduce light in the neighbouring property.I wrote a press notice and sent it to the Hounslow Chronicle and to Brentford TW8.com – to raise the profile of the case.  The Chronicle did some additional research which dug up some facts about the developer added to our case.The Clifden Road and Hamilton Road groups did not work together – we probably should have linked up but I only found out the day before that both applications were going to the same committee.  A group of us attended the planning committee meeting.  The audience was packed with ordinary Hounslow citizens (from Clifden Road, Hamilton Road and elsewhere) who had come to hear decisions affecting their neighbourhoods.The Hamilton Road case came up first.  Two residents of Hamilton Road presented a very eloquent case of why the development was in contravention of the conservation area and also raised issues concerning emergency vehicle access.  Councillors were concerned that the planning officers were recommending approval despite the fact that 2 previous applications for this site have been rejected in the last 10 years on the grounds of contravention of conservation area.  When the Clifden Road application came up, one of my neighbours presented the case against- using PowerPoint diagrams and photos.  Councillors also noted that the proposal was a ‘wrap around’ extension which they had previously ruled was not allowed in conservation areas.  In addition, the developer’s representative admitted that the developer had been foolish to start work on the site without planning permission.Of our 3 local ward councillors, one was absent from the meeting.  One councillor does live in Clifden Road – but she excused herself from the discussion and the vote in order to avoid any conflict of interest.  So only one local ward councillor was present for this.  It was not just Labour councillors but also Conservative councillors who voted against the development.None of the Clifden Road protest group is related to members of the planning committee.  Two of us do have the same surname as two councillors.  This is pure coincidence.  Indeed Councillor Curran pointed out at the planning committee that he was no relation of James Curran (who presented the residents’ case).The lesson I draw from all this is that local people can successfully oppose developments that are not in keeping with Brentford’s unique character.  And that the Planning Committee has now set a clear precedent – in both the Hamilton Road and Clifden Road cases – and set a clear statement of what the St Paul’s Conservation Area means.  We can then all use this to protect the character of Brentford – not just in Clifden Road and Hamilton Road but in Brooke Road South, Lateward Road and elsewhere.  And if people from all these streets can work together to protect the conservation area, all the better.

Adam Jackson ● 4754d

Interesting.How come too that no representative has come on this forum to explain everything either.Apart from many being mislead by the exact nature of the proposals,  it does seem rather strange that two quoted spokespersons have the same surnames as two local councillors.I have heard a report from the meeting and it seems to be OK but I too am waiting to see the minutes.I also want to know how a councillor who has fiscal associations with a lobbying PR company specialising in getting planning applications passed or blocked can A. Chair a planning committee and B. Vote.Ethically that stinks and speaks volumes about the antics of politicians off all parties.

Michael Brandt ● 4755d

How come the minutes of the 7 March Hounslow Planning Committee meeting (where the Clifden Road and Hamilton Road developments were refused) have still not been published online?  This just adds to the conspiracy theories about a certain local councillor's involvement in the decisions.

Reg Ghosh ● 4755d

I've sent you a private message.

Holly Hodges ● 4765d

Sorry to sound naive but what's Pmd ?

Raymond Havelock ● 4766d

The minutes of the planning meeting aren't up on the Hounslow site yet but they may be helpful. I've PMd you.

Holly Hodges ● 4766d

That's a story that my wife has come home with on more than a few occasions over the years.Is bullying and intimidation not the same regardless who or where it comes from?

Raymond Havelock ● 4767d

Having worked at Hounslow for 5 years I can comfortably say I was never intimidated by Councillors in any way, indeed the same applies to any of the six Councils where I worked.  Inevitably from time to time Officers might 'clash' with Councillors or vice versa, but that's part of the job, sometimes the Officers get it right and something they get it wrong.In my job I'd sometimes have Councillors contacting me pushing for swift enforcement action on something which I professionally felt was trivial, other times Councillors would ask me (in a polite, non-threatening manner) if I could be lenient on someone who had committed a serious breach of planning control.  As I say, part of the job.On the other hand, as I've openly said on this forum before, I did witness first hand a bullying Director (not at Hounslow), and it was strongly rumoured that the reason for that Director being like that was because Councillors had threatened her to ensure that she did what they wanted else she'd lose her job).  Having worked at said Council and come  into day to day contact with said Councillors, I don't believe that for a minute, in my mind she was just a control freak.And when she tried to bully me, I stood my ground, resulting in yes me leaving that job but also getting a 5 figure payout (one that I never asked for).  I was subsequently out of work for 6 months, partly out of choice, as I received several offers from other Councils asking to take me on, and I ended up being offered a very high profile post with Taylor Wimpey.  My deputy at this particular Council handed in his notice the day after my departure out of disgust at how I'd been treated and walked straight into another job at another Council.  What I do find a little 'sad' is that another colleague who I thought had very good career prospects still works for the same Council in the same job five years later - each to their own but I can't help but think staying there has seriously harmed her career.So I don't buy this talk about intimidation - and there's not many people who've been through my experience.

Adam Beamish ● 4767d

I would love to believe you Adam and am sure that most are diligent.But these are strange times and this episode locally utterly stinks.I think council officers are being intimidated and leaned on in a way that has them worried about their career prospects. As I am married to a planning officer I know this is happening. Certainly  in other boroughs. It seems worse here.You are lucky Adam if it is not engulfing you.But the stuff gleaned in my short time here and recent happenings make the heading of double standards more than apt.The same arguments in the same conservation area. A similar sized campaign, a raft of sound concerns for objection. The unwillingness of local councillors to assist first time objectors even if jst on protocol, Altered diagrams presented. Concern only over a garage rented by a former local MP, and political cronyism.Far too many coincidences and there cannot be smoke without fire. And there seems to be a lot of smoke.I've only lived here a short time but already there seems to be some rather strange cliques and it also seems highly political but childish and manipulative in it's methods.Legal? Maybe. But ethical and a true to the local electorate. It doesn't look like it.I've met a few of these people as I was until last month, a lifelong Labour supporter. Now I am disgusted at what I have heard and almost ashamed to be associated.

Raymond Havelock ● 4767d

It does get rather tiresome that everytime there's a thread about planning the usual suspects immediately spout these allegations of some kind of dodgy dealings and foul play.Give my 15 years of actually working in planning, both as a Council Team Leader, Planning Manager for Taylor Wimpey and as a consultant to major developers, if so much dodgy dealings were going on I'd know about it.  I don't claim everything is whiter than white 100% of the time, but it amuses/annoys me how a minority of the public always find it so easy to make wild accusations or smears, yet rarely have any actual proof or evidence to back it up.  And as I say whilst I wouldn't say everything is whiter than white 100% of the time (give me an example of anything in the world which is) that applies just as much to you or I (the public) as it does to Councillors and Council Officers - what I have witnessed far more over the last 15 years is members of the public openly lie or distort evidence for their own benefit, the worst case of which I've seen was an attempt at entrapment which had it succeeded would have ruined my career.  Not forgetting the physical assaults or verbal abuse either.There's two sides to every story.

Adam Beamish ● 4767d

Who exactly is We?  All very clandestine and rather secret.There was a petition of well over 120 signatures, many objections filed by individuals. And likewise, a fight and well reasoned array of objections raised  but totally ignored and dismissed without anything other than a few flippant remarksThere was even a web link.No help was offered by the so called residents association. Only one councillor responded who said it was in line with policy and then failed like the others to respond or discuss with anyone.They would not even help with advice on the protocols of objection and most who did had never done that sort of thing before. Which is supposed to be an obligation of a councillor.So what is the difference between structures that will be prominent and not in keeping with rest of the surrounding buildings in the heart of a conservation area?  Why is it Bats and Sloworms, flood relief drains and safety access are not relevant two streets away and all of a sudden are an issue for other plans.I'm not a betting man but if the bungalow land passes to LBH ( and it probably will ) it will be another story.So who exactly is We? And what is their relation to members of the council? What help did you get from the local councillors?I'm sure quite a few would like to know.Who exactly assisted your streets but not ours? In other words, where were you all when we needed more support? Why was this of no interest in the same precious conservation area? Or does it have more to do with one development being right on the doorstep of a local councillor and a street with a lot of Labour party members?

Anthony Waller ● 4767d

Dear Fellow Brentford Resident,We feel that it is unfair to state the difference between the two is because one is private and the other is the Council, when each case is judged on its own merit.  We cannot help but feel offended by your comments as you are completely disregarding the fact that we residents of Hamilton Road and Westbury Place along with those in Clifden Road put up a damn good fight against these proposed plans.We recommend you recalibrate your arguments and launch an appeal against the Council to overturn its decision. We feel that it is counterproductive to draw parallels between the schemes and to attack the success of other members of your community whom could help you should you require further support.  After all, we all live in the same area and it is in everyones interest to maintain the character of the St.Paul's conservation area.Regards,Mark

Mark Skuse ● 4767d

I hear locally that's there's more to this story than would appear.Maybe that's why nothing has appeared online.If what I've heard is true then it's near criminal.So over to Clifden Road to clear the air and put matters straight.Cliques and freaks.

Raymond Havelock ● 4768d

Nice to meet you at the footie Tony, Thinks for filling me in on all this stuff.But this....words fail me...well at least publishable words!!Shameful.

Raymond Havelock ● 4769d

Well, that's kind of what we already knew but that confirms it.Does a councillor live in one of these streets? Did she vote for or against?She voted for in the Brook Road and Lateward road proposals.ON these grounds one or other - objectors or developers will have good grounds to appeal.

Michael Brandt ● 4769d