Forum Topic

Next doctor's appointment in Brentford  - 29th April!

This is NOT acceptable -  where are the new surgeries, schools and other essential public services needed to support all this development in Brentford?

Rod de St Croix ● 4496d37 Comments

I bow to your better knowledge, Adam.

John Connelly ● 4490d

It has to be said that the general approach of the Coalition to planning has been to announce some half-baked idea, followed shortly thereafter by the partial or complete withdrawal of that idea.Before the 2010 elections the Tories made a huge thing about tightening up on enforcement, something akin to crime punishments in Saudi Arabia, yet here we are with a grand total of one paragraph within the national guidance on planning enforcement.  The latest thing about residential extensions and obtaining permission from neighbours is absolute madness and is open to all kinds of abuse and hasn't got the protection of the environment or an individual's wish to develop their property at its heart.The whole notion of freeing up the system seems to be a way of masking the woeful inadequacies in Council resources, but  the fact remains that due to those resource issues the service both applicants and objectors are generally receiving from Councils continues to decline.  Ironically enough in this regard and based on both mine and my colleagues daily experiences of dealing with many Council planning department (and nothing to do with the fact I used to work there), Hounslow actually provides a far better service than many others, for example today I'm dealing with another London Council where we submitted an application 5 weeks ago and as yet the file is still with admin and standard notification letters haven't even be sent out to the public.John, sorry to be pedantic but actually advertising is probably not a good illustration of your point as unlike with unauthorised development, advertisements which are displayed without any required consent are immediately liable to prosecution.

Adam Beamish ● 4490d

Jennifer, the current planning system is largely based on changes made during Thatcher's years in government.Prior to the 1980's, there was a requirement on new developers to demonstrate that their plans were of positive benefit to the area concerned, and councils could reject an application if they did not consider this to be the case.In the 1980's the new system introduced an assumption in favour of all new planning applications, requiring the council's planners to provide evidence that there would be a negative effect if the development were to go ahead to justify refusal. Today, if someone erects a new advertising sign on the A4 without making a planning application they can only be made to take it down following an expensive process of planning enforcement. Until the planning appeal is upheld the owner of the site is free to earn advertising income perfectly legally.The regulations introduced in the 1980's also make it more difficult for councils to negotiate so-called planning gains of the type many Brentford residents are arguing for on this thread.Eric Pickles, who identifies himself as a Thatcherite, wanted to loosen the rules on building domestic extensions and has only backed down as a result of pressure from his more regulatory-minded colleagues. Thatcher herself has been criticised by fellow supporters of the free market for failing to abolish much of the "red tape" in planning laws that protect us today from a developers' free for all.

John Connelly ● 4492d

Reading all these posts it's pretty apparent that the current planning arrangements are a complete mess.  The whole lot needs ripping up and re-writing - in other words it needs a Mrs T to see the chaos and be determined and brave enough to sort it!Of course, under used land/ derelict spaces should be developed and developers must be permitted to make profits and flourish but development must be in harmony with local needs - that's obviously not happening - big changes and a total re-think are essential.

Jennifer Selig ● 4492d

"...    it might lengthen her driving time from Chiswick to M&S in the Kew Retail Park."Why would one go via Kew Bridge from Chiswick?  Surely via Chiswick Bridge is a quicker route for many?

Jennifer Selig ● 4492d

Rod, I don't think anyone completely disagrees with you.  But read my post from last night about how much 'easier' it was to obtain planning permission 40 years ago.On a smaller scale I see the coalition has now made a laughable concession regarding the proposed relaxation to permitted development rights relating to house extensions.  It was a big enough joke in the first place to suggest that by relaxing those controls would in some way stimulate the construction economy.  But now it's descended into utter farce - anyone who wants to build a bigger extension will have to ask their neighbours and if the neighbours object then the Council will have to decide whether the extension causes an unreasonable loss of amenity.So bung the neighbours afew quid and you can built a huge extension without needing any kind of planning permission.  And what if those neighbours then move out ?.  The whole basis of the planning system ever since it was first introduced in 1947 was to try to balance the need/desire for development with preserving amenity for both the present and future generations - this latest change makes an absolute mockery of that.

Adam Beamish ● 4493d

I have lived in Brentford 11 years now and it is much harder to get a gp appt. now than at any time in those years imo.I think if the surgeries compared the doctor to patient ratio then to the same now they would see a marked difference.

Keith Iddon ● 4493d

Alex,When you consider that the Council have the last say so on Planning permission one would think that some bright spark would suggest such a proviso, after all what possible good is more population growth to Brentford without more of each  of the following:=more Shops,Medical Facilities and Parking most important of all more Work once upon a time the Great West Road from Gillette to Chiswick Roundabout was called the Golden Mile.

Dawn Hardy ● 4493d

So, it's cloud cuckoo land to suggest that the planning system is broken. Utter madness to say that planning in Brentford is out of control and insanity to criticise developers who are only trying to make an 'honest' living. In the US they'd tell you, you've been drinking too much of your own coolaid. 150 years ago when victorians built much of what still exists in Brentford today, they thought about the infrastructure, public health and well being. Facts - the railway and underground services, St Paul's park, Brentford Baths, Library etc... Why is this important? because human beings need more from their community than just a home.  Roll forward to today and what will our generation's lasting legacy be? In 150 years' time today's shiny buildings and tiny flats will have collapsed or been demolished by a new generation that recognises rubbish for what it is. But I bet you one thing, my modest Victorian terrace will still be standing.

Rod de St Croix ● 4493d

Funnily enough my other half often asks me why I bother posting on these forums !.Rod, let's be clear, I don't post here for professional or commercial motivations.  Don't single me out as being "pro-development" as you seemingly assume I am.  As both an individual and as a company, the consultancy I work for acts on behalf of developers, Councils and third parties objecting to development.  As MRTPI, I'm bound by a professional code of conduct.  My previous jobs include 10 years working for Councils, largely in an enforcement capacity, and also as Taylor Wimpey's Planning Manager for Greater London.  I've also lived here for over 10 years, and if I didn't care about the locality I wouldn't use my free time posting on these forums.In short, I believe I have a very rounded practical experience and knowledge of the planning system - I've seen it from all sides, for good and for bad.  Whilst we may not agree on everything, you'll see the likes of John, Vanessa and myself in broad agreement about how the system works, because we've all been involved in it over the years.A couple of other points/facts.  The planning system has always been development led, i.e. a presumption in favour of development, that's nothing new.  Secondly, the system is far more onerous for developers these days than in the past.  Today we submitted an application for 54 new units in East London, that application was accompanied by no less than 17 specialist reports (all legally required as otherwise the Council won't even validate the application) and the costs of putting together that application (which has been over 2 years in the making) are enormous.  Yet we had to laugh this afternoon when we were reviewing a permission from the mid 1970's for a neighbouring site (for a similar scheme to ours) - the application comprised afew drawings, a covering letter, a small statutory fee, and the permission was subject to a grand total of 3 conditions and didn't require the developers to pay a penny towards anything.  So how come all these problems which you blame on development are only a problem now ?.

Adam Beamish ● 4493d

A council can only turn down a planning application on planning grounds - how on earth do you suggest they force the NHS to provide medical facilities? Both Adam and John have pointed out the real practicalities and realities and both have a lot of experience, but you don't want to hear, what you are all saying is cloud cuckoo land stuff, life just isn't like you would all like to imagine.

Vanessa Smith ● 4493d

If the council cannot agree with NHS for more medical facilities - may be they should just turn down developer's planning application and thus stop the growth of Brentford population not supported by infrastructure?

Alex Shpinkov ● 4494d

A great synopsis and so true.

Dawn Hardy ● 4494d

Have you never heard of the phrase perception is reality? So the Reynards Mill developers never appealed? and backward looking sixties style high rise development is a good way to foster social cohesion? Want some facts.1. I have counted three major developments under construction in Brentford, with more to come. 2. The Brentford  population is set to increase by at least 50%3. Local essential services have degraded - 12 day wait to see a doctor4. Worsening parking provision in St. Paul's Conservation area is accompanied by street by street CPZ5. No evidence of new investment in Brentford's infrastructure and if there is, it is not being communicated by developers or the council. 6. Oversubscribed schoolsWhat has been the catalyst for all the above? Development. Development that is arguably excessive and certainly poorly planned. It is sending our community backwards when we should be moving forwards. It's focused on short term profit and shortchanges local residents who are left with degraded services.That is my view, it is based on having lived in Brentford since 1999.Unlike others, my interests are not commercially or professionally motivated. I post on this forum because I truly care about the community that I call home, do you?

Rod de St Croix ● 4494d

I was tempted to use John Todd's posting style and entitle my post as "Facts". Anyway, here are a few:-1) Hounslow Council carried out a scrutiny exercise into why £400,000, negotiated by Hounslow's planners as planning gain on a new housing development in Hounslow Heath to provide a new health centre, had been returned to the developers.I was particularly agitated about this at the time as I was the local councillor and the enlarged estate would end up with no shop, no bus service, no community centre and no health centre if the money was not invested by the NHS as intended.What the scrutiny exercise determined was that the local NHS Trust was not interested in taking the money and investing in a new local health centre. The end result was that the developer kept his £400,000 and made bigger profits by using the space provided for the health centre to build more flats.Keith's suggestion that Hounslow Council uses council tax for health services would require the same NHS Trust to agree to the spending. However, as central government grant to councils is based upon the amount they can raise locally and the size of the local population, an increase in council tax revenue eventually leads to a pound for pound reduction in government grant. In the near future cuts would need to be made in services the Council is responsible for in order to cover the money diverted to the NHS.Finally, on local shops: there are a large number of empty units in Brentford. Where shops locate is up to their private owners, and if they don't want to open in Brentford there is nothing the council can do. It also depends upon where people want to shop, and the more people prefer to shop in large supermarkets and shopping centres the less likely the local high street will recover.Indeed, I am sure someone who opposed Brentford moving to Lionel Road did so on the grounds it might lengthen her driving time from Chiswick to M&S in the Kew Retail Park.

John Connelly ● 4494d

Adam,This is just my choice personally, I shop in Morrison's for Bread,Milk and anything that I may have forgotten.Otherwise I do my main shop Meat(English & Scots) etc from Chiswick Sainsbury, my potatoes are delivered from the farm.If we had more shops, the way it was 40 years ago then our economy in Brentford would boost, incidentally when we were Brentford and Chiswick we were fine economically unfortunately when we became what is it Spelthorne LBH that was when the Bells began to Toll for Brentford, we deserve better.

Dawn Hardy ● 4494d

I agree with you wholeheartedly, yes let us welcome our newcomer's however we are still awaiting our Marks & Spencer plus other big name shops along our waterfront behind the high street, now we have been promised this for nearly 10 years, where is it or are we to be deceived yet again and just have flats built there?

Dawn Hardy ● 4494d

Rob,Have you tried speaking to the practise manager of the surgery that you are registered with about the unnacceptable wait for appointments?

Keith Iddon ● 4494d

Quite right Adam, let's face it the biggest threat to High Streets is online shopping and that affects not just Brentford but all other town centres. I doubt we can ever go back to what we had once, nostalgia seems to get in the way of common sense.

Vanessa Smith ● 4494d

But surely Dawn there's the much wider issue here of changing people's personal, shopping and social habits ? - I struggle with any suggestion that development destroys places socially or economically.Whether it's for the better or the worse, we live in a very different world to what people lived in 40 years ago.

Adam Beamish ● 4494d

It worries me that Brentford does not have the infrastructure to support the growing number of people moving into Brentford now and in the future.  I welcome people to our wonderful town but Hounslow Council must have seen the Brentford revenue rocket with all the new flats and by default council tax so lets see some of it spent on the area to improve services for us and its growing population.

Debbie Richmond ● 4494d

Of course they could and they should, they have a duty not only for New Build but to ensure that facilities are more than adequate to cope with the new influx of people, planners should be taken to task for not forecasting appropriately.

Dawn Hardy ● 4494d

Not so long ago GP's actually worked a 40 hour week in their surgeries plus home visits, we may have more GP's per surgery however individually their hours are greatly reduced.With all this new build what has it actually done for Brentford, we still only have one Supermarket although there are 3 Nail shops on the go, we no longer have butchers, we have 1 Chemist shop in the High Street just hanging on.And yet 40 years ago just in the High Street alone.David Greigs,Pearks,Co-op(Grocery Shops) 3 Butchers, 2 Chemists,4 Shoe Shops,Pie & Eel Shop, Snooker Hall, 2 Green Grocers,Wet Fish Shop also Stones Men's Outfitters also 2 Bakers Shop's. Brentford unfortunately may have numerous New Builds but it has been destroyed socially and economically.

Dawn Hardy ● 4494d

I hear what you say, but you don't seem to be reading my posts.  The level of contributions which a developer is required to pay is usually set out by the Planning Obligations  Supplementary Planning Document produced by Councils.  That's the starting point for negotiations, which then have to consider the viability of a development if that level of contributions is paid.Your perception of developers is no different to people's perception of traffic wardens and such like.  On the one hand you talk about improving their reputation by bringing the community onside, yet on the other you imply that public exhibitions and such like are 'unconvincing PR campaigns'.  I suspect you'd also argue that it's a shame there's lots of vacant land/buildings and the resulting eyesore state of that land (which is probably only vacant because it's not economically viable for development at the moment) yet on the other want developers to pay for everything.Developers don't waste money on endless appeals - not in their interest to do so.Ironically you talk about restoring balance and yet to me your views are wholly one sided and based purely on a perception rather than any actual factual basis.

Adam Beamish ● 4494d

Keith - you are dangerously close to assuming that it would be logical for the council to use he funds raised from cpz's for the benefit of the communities that pay for them!

Chris Broadbent ● 4494d

Surely LBH can use some of the massive increase in council tax receipts that they receive from all the new flats,those already built and those in the process of being built or those proposed to fund a couple more doctors for the parish? That would seem fair and equitable would it not?

Keith Iddon ● 4494d

This is not about rejecting development. This is about restoring the balance in the community's infrastructure as a result of development. More housing means more people. Extra people draw on essential local services which often lack the resources to cope with the extra demand. If those resources aren't strengthened, everyone in the community suffers from degraded services. If developers want to improve their reputation and bring the local community onside, then they should pay more than token lip service to the real impact of their schemes on the local infrastructure. Such an approach from the outset would likely save them money wasted on endless appeals and unconvincing PR campaigns that only further alienate local people.

Rod de St Croix ● 4494d

I don't know how much you know about planning Rod, but the system is pretty much pre-disposed towards development. Councils do try their best but they are up against some formidable opposition that have more legal resources than a local authority can muster or afford. This government want to make it even easier, I don't think they much care about what existing residents think or want to see, clearly anywhere near water is going to be a prime target for developers and locals will not be able to afford to  rent or buy. A local authority would have to think long and hard about whether or not they could justify the time and taxpayers money by turning down proposed developments, and of course whether or not they had grounds to do so. They would be risking the developer going to appeal only to lose every way if they got it wrong, these things are never as easy as they might look.

Vanessa Smith ● 4494d

It must be a very tough job defending developer  interests EVERY time there is a related comment on this forum. Schemes that can't return reasonable margins are non starters. Every scheme should make a proper contribution to rebalance infrastructures. Shortchanging the Brentford community to improve margins is not on and funds should only be released by developers on the express condition that they are used to rebalance the infrastructure. Brentford is being used as a cash cow - every inch of available Thames frontage is being turned into luxury flats. Anyone living in Brentford need only look around them for clear evidence that development is out of control. Too much, too fast and too big (just look at that Barratt 25 storey monstrosity & it is a monstrosity, not one RESIDENT I have spoken to thinks it's a positive addition to Brentford & who knows the scale of its emerging neighbour  opposite). High rise living may suit couples and singles but its a poor substitute for proper family homes.

Rod de St Croix ● 4495d

You can't expect developers to provide everything.  I know to the public there's this perception that developers have got endless pots of money to throw around, and also most of the public haven't got a clue about the cost incurred in obtaining planning permissions, which is understandable.  For obvious reasons I have, and the figures are enormous.However, the public must understand that if a development isn't viable, including that it doesn't return a reasonable level of profit, then long vacant sites will remain vacant.  Would you or I invest £1000 in something which indicators suggested would only generate a return of £1050 and there were lots of hoops to jump through to reach that point ? - of course we wouldn't.

Adam Beamish ● 4495d

Either developer funds are inadequate to support the infrastructure expansion needed to complement new developments or the council is spending the funds elsewhere in the borough. Residents are already feeling the impact (parking, traffic congestion, rail transport congestion, doctor's appointments, school places etc) and unless action is taken soon, Brentford will experience structural meltdown in years to come.

Rod de St Croix ● 4495d

Ironically enough the last time my other half had to go to the doctors I thought we'd have to wait for days so we went to a walk-in clinic, which was excellent but they did advise us to also make an appointment immediately with the doctor, and to my astonishment the first available appointment was literally a couple of hours later.However, at the doctors we came across perhaps the rudest, most ignorant doctor I've ever met, who proceeded to get very stroppy at the fact we'd come along after going to the walk-in centre (despite being expressly told to do so) and displayed an alarming lack of knowledge by telling us that Lyme's Disease is something that doesn't lie dormant and once you've had it and recovered then you're free of it.Suffice to say we won't be seeing that doctor again.

Adam Beamish ● 4495d

I rang my Gp last Monday for an appointment i have to wait till the 25th.

Simon Anderson ● 4495d

Exactly Adam. Section 106 monies could easily be used for medical facilities, I know they were in the not so distant past in other areas. I have noticed the very big change in waiting times for hospital appointments too, I wasn't a particularly big fan of the constant target driven culture, but say what you like where NHS waiting times were concerned they worked. I have only just managed to get an appopintment for an ultrasound referred in February - prior to this I don't think I ever waited more than a couple of weeks. And I only managed to get that after several 'phone calls by me and my GP and eventually the intervention of the excellent PALS unit at the WMUH.

Vanessa Smith ● 4496d

Err, developers don't just run away without having to pay the agreed level of financial contributions to the Council, so really the question should be directed at the Council.And much as I get frustrated with delays to see a doctor, hospital appointments and such like, there's the much bigger picture of the government and NHS resources which is the real problem/catalyst for these delays.

Adam Beamish ● 4496d

Welcome to the real world of what's been happening to the town over the last few years. More to come!

Kevin Farnan ● 4496d

It was forgotten the minute the builders started selling their new builds, unfortunately they take their profits and fly away,not  giving a damn about the residents!

Dawn Hardy ● 4496d