Forum Topic

7000 new builds 5000 sold abroad

That's the statistic from Simon Hughes MP.Something that those in Brentford know only too well with so many new build apartments and developments in partial use.We have developers promoting buy to lets and almost all developments are unaffordable to local people who do not fit the councils criteria for social housing but now cannot ever afford a decent size of home even on what is supposed to be a good salary.Labour MP Hilary Benn ( once a South Ealing councillor) has also stated that residents should decide what gets built where and not developers in deals with councils.So one wonders if Cllr Curran mentioned any of this on his tour with GLA housing people?We have massive developments here almost all of which will not make any difference to the real crisis of homes for ordinary people.5000 new build properties out of 7000 sold to overseas investors is just part of the scheming to hype up prices and prize out local people.A crisis is being created simply to line the pockets of profiteers and local authorities have been duped hook, line and sinker in particular in this district.It needs to be stopped and local councillors must take this seriously .

Michael Brandt ● 4622d29 Comments

Thanks Keith - but this is referencing the growing buy to let market for overseas investors ( which I also referred to in my earlier post). You seem to be suggesting that you are aware that luxury properties in Brentford are being bought by overseas buyers with no intention of renting them out - which is not quite the same thing.

Chris Broadbent ● 4581d

Bump for Christopher

Keith Iddon ● 4581d

If you look at the number of active members in the old 'public sector' pension schemes you will realise just how many people are still employed in the new privatised companies.

Chris Broadbent ● 4613d

Even people in there early 50's were working for pre privatised companies and are now in the management eschelons.

Raymond Havelock ● 4613d

I would doubt that very much, even if any of those people lasted they'd all be retired now!

Vanessa Smith ● 4613d

They still have large teams of senior and middle management in place from before the foreign ownership

Chris Broadbent ● 4614d

I think Scottish Power is Spanish(!) owned isn't it?

Keith Iddon ● 4614d

Most of the utilities now belong to foreign outfits - so I have to disagree with Raymond's assertion that any trace of public service ethos exists at all within them. They are run purely for profit - they also have a captive consumer base, as we cannot live without their product. So it is easy to hold us to ransom with constant swingeing price rises. It's a double whammy, these greedy firms say prices have to rise to fund investment, but they also get tax breaks for the same reason, ain't life grand?

Vanessa Smith ● 4614d

Not sure that my memories of being a customer of British Rail in the 1970's gave me a good taste of the 'ethos of public service' that Vanessa references.And setting aside political leaning is it fair to say that for most peoples day to day interactions with the health service that the NHS trumps the private sector?I agree one of the problems with the public utilities that were privatised was that they were essentially management buy outs - but to existing management teams who were seriously out of their depth

Chris Broadbent ● 4614d

Well Vanessa you have hit the nail on the head.All the private sector you have mentioned are ex public sector. Almost without exception they are run just like government or authority organisations.Quite unlike ordinary businesses.The culture is so deep rooted that it runs from top to bottom. At the top it's run by spivs and chums of the establishment and at the bottom end it's still the unions and rules and regulations.Some of the worst excesses outside the financial industry are from former state run industries and some of the worst decisions and policies radiate from the same.How on earth TfL's Peter Hendy gets a Knighthood and now the chief of a world transportation body for being in charge of TfL for the bombings and the Olympics.It was the staff who carried out first aid, and the backroom planners and the drivers who made things work, mainly with goodwill. Not one individual.It's all fixed and that's all part of the culture.That's a bit stereotypical and not true of all but it does, in my experience, give a reliable guide.

Raymond Havelock ● 4614d

"But the mindset, methods of practice and culture are pretty much the same."I disagree, in my working life I was a civil servant but I was also a local authority councillor at the same time. It was my view that local authorities were like well-oiled professional machines. The civil service however was struggling to come to terms with the fact Queen Victoria had died some years previously. Where the public sector trumps the private everytime can be seen in the utilities, railways and health care, and let's not forget the travesty at the Olympics last year. There is an ethos of service still in the public sector that does not have to worry about profits for investors before all else. To think that Thames Water have got a tax break for 'investment' - what tripe! They are a private outfit why should the taxpayer give them what is in effect a subsidy, while they are still paying massive dividends to shareholders? Similarly the privatised railways.

Vanessa Smith ● 4614d

Raymond, aside from the fact I've never one criticised anyone for being 'ignorant' about planning matters, as you imply, I haven't worked in the public sector for 6 years, and have worked for the last 6 years both for a major housebuilder and for a planning consultancy acting on behalf of developers, objectors, residents groups and occasionally for Councils.  Of course I'm also a resident of the Borough.Wearing all the hats that I do gives me, in my view, a well rounded view of planning matters from all perspectives.

Adam Beamish ● 4614d

You are correct Vanessa, that technically a civil servant is not a council officer.But the mindset, methods of practice and culture are pretty much the same.Public sector is probably a better term.  As I work with a foot in both private and public it is more often than not worlds apart.As for conspiracy theories well. rather a lot of these are being borne out to be largely true in all sorts of things.I think it's fair to say that often when one works in a closed profession, it's very hard to see the wheat from the chaff. A bit like a relationship that's not quite right. Everyone else can see what's wrong but not those who are the couple. No-one on the outside wants to be direct and if they do it's often a state of denial or even treachery.The public sector really does echo this. I'm glad I don't work in it fully. That said the private sector is not much better but it's ability to adapt and address failings is far better.

Raymond Havelock ● 4614d

Vanessa substitute public sector for civil service

Chris Broadbent ● 4614d

For God's sake when will people understand that council officers are NOT civil servants, they are local government officers. Civil servants work directly for government departments, therefore Adam is not displaying "trypical civil servant mentality". It has to be said, whether you disagree with Adam or not, there are a couple of people on here who are obsessed with Hounslow council being at the root of all problems, and who see conspiracies here, there nad everywhere.

Vanessa Smith ● 4614d

I do find it rather tiring that whenever someone makes a point or an observation that is critical of the council or planning policies and methods, we get Adam dismissing everyone as ignorant or accusing everyone as being David Icke.It's rather like Labour calling people racist, homophobic or any other distasteful branding if they oppose or stand in their way. It's not really cricket. Adam, you are more than capable of enlightening from a procedure and protocal angle but it does not exude positive or solutions or reveal the shortcomings. It's great to hear the minutae but it is typical civil servant mentality. It's all very defensive but in reality it is a broken system that is being magnified in London and the home counties.I can't speak for Anthony but what he says is very close to what may be going on.I've just spent a week in a briefings and endless dull and boring presentations at Portcullis House and this very scenario was presented . It did not name Brentford or Hounslow or any other authority but one chap stood up and produced evidence which shows a blind eye is being turned in exchange for council tax windfalls.It's rather clever in some ways. Premium range developments = Maximum banding for minimal occupancy, Maximum revenue for minimal population increase and minimal demand of services.No-one has said anyone has done anything wrong, at least legally, but it is now of serious concern, enough for the government, opposition and GLA to begin investigating.What was apparent it that local authorities do have means available to resist these pressures but many are not.So if I know this and only work on the periphery of this, why the prompt dismissal of an observation?

Raymond Havelock ● 4615d

But that has nothing to do with the specific issue of the enforcement of lease clauses, which is precisely why Ryan's post was about.  At least he now knows who he should be reporting this to.

Adam Beamish ● 4615d

Adam is right, you seem bound and determined to find fault with the council even when you do not check your facts. It may come as a surprise to you - but not everything in this world is the responsibility of Hounslow Council.

Vanessa Smith ● 4616d

If it were that much of a conspiracy theory it would not be getting investigated by parliament.it is now part of the investigation on the same issue which has been raised over developers and councils offering deals with overseas buyers in Cannes.Either way  Adam, something ain't right.

Anthony Waller ● 4616d

Err, or maybe just simply because it's a civil matter and absolutely nothing to do with the Council ?.Some of you on here would give Alex Jones or David Icke a good run for their money will all your conspiracy theories getting in the way of simple facts...

Adam Beamish ● 4616d

Simple answer as to why, and that is because it isn't a planning matter.  It's a matter for the freeholder to take up through civil action however as it will almost certainly be a breach of the clauses of the lease.  Definitely something you should take up with the managing agents, not with the Council.

Adam Beamish ● 4616d

Now there's a surprise, they are only interested in council tax revenue and nothing else.It's one big scam at the expense of Brentford and local people who do need an affordable home.The local authority know exactly what is going on. In fact they quietly encourage it.It's quite simple, they get council tax revenue without having to provide any services as no-one is there. No school needs, no social services needs, not even refuse requirements.That's why they are so keen to allow luxury developments. They know the inhabitants are not likely to be full time residents or want council services.A far better deal and they can blow all the easy money on other parts of the borough.Another reason why Brentford, Chiswick and Isleworth should be a separate borough.

Anthony Waller ● 4616d

At GWQ some of the units are being advertised as short-term "serviced apartments" which do not have the correct planning consent. I tried to raise this with the council but they were distinctly uninterested.

Ryan Thomas ● 4616d

Can't argue with any of that.

Phil Andrews ● 4620d

Given that the bill for housing homeless families in temporary accomodation over the last four years has been £2bn. Which is reckoned to be enough to build 70,000 new homes you do wonder whether or not some politicians did arithmetic at school. I think Labour were woefully inadequate where housing was concerned, the stupid idea of knocking all those lovely old terraces down up in the North, when they could and should have easily renovated them was really bonkers. The other thing they should never have done is gone along with this bonkers idea of thinking housing associations were better landlords for social housing than councils - they aren't, and they never will be.

Vanessa Smith ● 4621d

I agree, but the real problem was with John Prescott who stalled lot of developments because of a policy to reduce parking on new developments.A lot of developers knew they would have unsellable properties as almost everyone in the market to but would at some stage need a car or use of one and somewhere to keep it.Ken was an advocate of hi rise blocks ( although he also said he would prefer not to live in one himself and that they were not good for family life and older people. Boris is similar on this.But both cannot seem to get their heads around what is affordable and what is social.In the South East of England this has to be addressed and controlled in dare I say it an almost communistic way and put human community and quality of life before big profits.Otherwise social meltdown is gong to come knocking at all our doors.In Greenwich, where a lot of developments are going up almost all have ample garaging for not just residents but visitors. So it does not add to the burden upon existing streets which are very like this area.In Hounslow they were ready to adopt Prescott's policy without question simply because it was 'New Labour'. Now the same opposite policy is starting to emerge from 'old new Labour HQ.'Either way it is at least a better direction and hopefully one with common sense that might emerge.

Raymond Havelock ● 4621d

To be fair both The Mayor of London and the government need to get on board, after all it was Boris who kiboshed Ken Livingstone's policy of ensuring all developments over 10 properties had to have a proportion of affordable housing within them, rising with the size of the development. Affordable/social housing call it what you will, needs to be built in huge numbers as most people are even priced out of the rental sector now, it's a bloody joke. We have an average national wage of £26,000 it is reckoned, yet you apparently need a salary of approx. £65,000 to rent privately around these parts...........

Vanessa Smith ● 4621d

I cannot understand why authorities cannot be empowered to compulsory purchase site that are genuinely derelict or deliberately made so by landowners and developers who want to get their way.Why can't the local authority be the property developer and build housing for sale at cost price? A not for profit social exercise that does not come with an enduring cost.It's high time this ridiculous circle of the cosy world of developers and authorities coming up with schemes to make a bucket of money, ends and build what is needed at a cost affordable to local people. Not the Chelsea or Putney set or those with too much money to play with. It should be state funded and sold for a very low profit that covers all costs and the return goes into the next project.Buyers would have to be genuine local based families and individuals and be bound by some regulatory contracts for at least 5 years to prevent buy to lets and dealers.Whilst in a capitalist system we have to accept that developers and estate agents are purely in business to make the maximum profit and by nature of the beast they have a mechanism to increase those profits.But morally we are at a crossroads.The gap between social housing and modest private housing has grown so great in part due to over concentrated population in one region but also by the property industry which has capitalised on this.But that leaves a void between those in social need and those overseas with wealth to invest.The local indigenous people who's children and generations live and work here and earn what is a normal income have very little chance of finding a home.  You have to have well heeled and generous parents, a decent inheritance or an extraordinary salary now to just afford a very modest 2 bed home.As Mr Brandt has pointed out, 5000 out of 7000 new homes being marketed and sold abroad is wholly wrong and I'm afraid to say I've seen places in Brentford marketed in such a way on regular business trips to the far east.Usually promoted as Kew on Thames.It does need to be dropped as do prices of properties, which of course any home owner does not want once on the ladder.But the schemes, fiddles and conivances now at last being aired need to be addressed and this council needs to get a grip and have no truck with all these greed driven partners that have been so keen to be associated with.It solves nothing and hawking off Brentford or anywhere else purely as a revenue raising exercise for the borough is something that should have any councillor with any sort of distinction hang their head in shame.

Raymond Havelock ● 4621d

Which is why local authorities need to be setting the direction as far as they are able when it comes to determining what should be built, not following the game.

Phil Andrews ● 4621d