Forum Topic

Lateward road- Sneaky developers

Demolition of the public amenity site in Lateward road is commencing.Hidden away on the site though, is a new planning application notice for alterations to this 'affordable housing' development.Notices are not prominent and as before very few residents have received any sort of noticeThe alterations are to enhance the value of the property by giving it a dormer to overlook St Paul's Park.This breaches the conservation policy which restricts other properties in the vicinity being permitted dormers to overlook the street or park.This confirms whispers from Councillors that the new properties will be sold off at top prices and the funds raised will not be going to affordable homes in Brentford but to fund projects in Feltham and Hounslow.LBH plundering Brentford yet again.Objections must be lodged within 2 weeks.

Anthony Waller ● 4369d25 Comments

Some Councils have 'design review panels' which are made up of local residents, architects and councillors, although it is more the exception than the norm.  Every Council has Conservation/Design/Historic Buildings Officers, and they are very 'active' on such matters, even if I sometimes think they were born on a different planet to the rest of us...The basic is that the actual granting of planning permission doesn't give anyone the right to commit a civil offence, i.e. to trespass on land they don't solely own to implement that permission.I regularly apply for development on land which the applicant doesn't own but is seeking to purchase, often with the whole deal to purchase subject to the granting of planning permission.  Now if the actual owner of that land actually had some say (purely in his/her capacity as owner of the land) about whether or not planning permission should be granted, i.e. "oh no I own that land so you can't grant permission without my agreement", that would lead to all kinds of manipulation - e.g. the applicant would effectively have to pay the owner an excessively high amount to buy their silence whilst the planning application was being considered.  That would be completely unreasonable wouldn't you say ?.That's the whole point and I don't see why the law as it stands causes people such concerns, because it is far more 'proper' than the situation which would arise if ownership meant something when determining a planning application.

Adam Beamish ● 4368d

Well this has strayed a bit from the original thread but it does come down to the same thing. People not being correctly informed, in particular those who are affected.This keeps happening in this borough.But I can't see how on earth someone can get permission to build on joint owned land.And I thought conservation areas are supposed to have conservation area panels made up of residents and councillors and a conservation officer to discuss these matters.  I know they do in Ealing.

Anthony Waller ● 4368d

It is a caper because if an applicant has experience and a scheme worked out they can use this as a tool to profit or get what they want.They know that they have put into place something that can only be stopped by legal intervention and they know that in 9 out of 10 cases the other owners will be too old, too busy or too poor to do anything about it.Which is exactly what this particular person is rather good at.As for the design, it will make the block look like a shanty hut but that's not the case.

Michael Brandt ● 4368d

Well like it or not that's the way the law is.What has Conservation Area designation got to do with ownership of a site ?.  If I stand in your back garden without your consent I'm trespassing, simple as that.The planning system isn't concerned about ownership, in the same way that when a planning application is being determined the Council can't take into account the financial gain to the developer or the possible financial loss to a neighbouring property.In the same way, how is obtaining written consent from one of the parties in ownership beforehand relevant to the actual planning merits of a development ?.I genuinely don't see it as any kind of caper, I see it as obvious common sense.

Adam Beamish ● 4368d

The quoted legal cost is in excess of £35,000 between 5. 3 of whom are not in work, two of whom earn less than £33,000 pa.This is a small group of small starter homes and the applicant has been buying up a lot of them locally. She knows that very few have finances and time to deal with applications and that many are rented out so have occupants who have no vested interest.The applicant has a lawyer in the family and has done exactly the same in another area, again the residents could not afford the cost of legal action.As Raymond mentions, I cannot understand how planning permission can be granted to build on shared ownership land without proof of consent from all of the sharing owners.The problem and cost is caused by this consent and application.Regardless of what the rules may say this is not right.

Michael Brandt ● 4368d

Well you learn something new every day.So Adam, if someone decides to make a planning application on shared grounds ( and this is very common for modern housing developments) In a conservation area to boot, they can. leaving other freeholders of the grounds to fork out and get involved in a legal battle?Surely, any application on shared grounds should have written consent from all the parties in ownership beforehand?How can ordinary homeowners deal with this sort of caper?  Caused by a local authority decision.  Trying to get 3,5 or 50 freeholders to agree to take legal action would be almost impossible and most, as these sorts of properties are small starter homes will simply not have the sort of funds or the time for this sort of stuff.I thought planning and conservation was supposed to protect residents from errant developments?

Raymond Havelock ● 4368d

Again Michael, ownership issues and deeds and covenants are nothing to do with the Council because they are entirely civil matters between the respective parties.  Rightly or wrongly (rightly in my view) that is the legal position and it has been for over 65 years now since the first planning act of 1947.  Not that it matters in the slightest given the above, but I just don't buy this suggestion that 5 other freeholders are going to sit by and do nothing whilst someone builds on their land, and if they do well that's plain stupidity on their part.  If I enter your property without your permission you call the police, you don't call the Council, but equally you wouldn't just sit there.  Having ran Enforcement Teams for Councils for years, there's certainly a sizeable minority of people who expect the Council to do everything for them because apparently that's what they pay their taxes for.  And to be honest those people are the ones who often end up taking up the most resources and in turn actually prevent the Council getting on with the things it has the power to deal with.

Adam Beamish ● 4368d

The problem is the planning permission with no-one knowing about it has spawned a civil matter.Apart from the trees being felled, There's never been an issue.Trouble is the wealthy multiple property owner has a track record of this and knows full well that the 5 other freeholders do not have the financial resources to take legal action.It's individuals of modest means up against a multiple landlord who has the resources at her disposal.It's a development built in a conservation area in the 1980's which has very strict terms even in the deeds with a covenant.But all that seems to have been ignored and I don't see why giving planning permission without the consent of the 5 other freeholders should be allowed.It dumps a very costly not to say rather aggravating problem for other people who have no means of defence.All this

Michael Brandt ● 4368d

You need to separate planning matters from civil matters.  If I come and stand in your back garden without your permission I'm trespassing.  Same goes for building something in your back garden without your permission.  Trespass/ownership disputes aren't planning matters, they are entirely civil matters - the granting planning permission doesn't override fundamental civil matters like land ownership, and nor can (legally) such matters be taken into consideration when determining that application.So there's no correlation between the chances of getting planning approval and the actual right to implement that permission if it's on land that isn't in your control.

Adam Beamish ● 4368d

So if I wanted to build say, a pavilion in gunnersbury park and nobody responded, I could? and stand a chance of getting approval?

Michael Brandt ● 4368d

Bit late now to respond in detail, but yes anyone can apply for planning permission to develop someone else's land, all they have to do is ensure that they let anyone with a legal interest in the land know that they are applying.And those with an interest in the land cannot object on the basis that it's their land, because the issue of ownership isn't a planning consideration, it is purely a civil matter as to actually build something on someone else's land would be trespass.

Adam Beamish ● 4368d

I hear what you are saying Adam.I'm not sure what you mean by EA the Environment Agency?I do know that Thames Water, LFCDA, Southern Electric and Environment Agency were not approached pre-decision. But only found that out several weeks thereafter.But by the same token, no-one including the objectors knew about the flooding problem of the 1960s.The statement made later over the sub station was " I modern technology will remove the need for the sub-station. "Well the sub-station remains as electricity still requires cables and transformers.The only difference is that the cables would now not be permitted as they are too close to two parallel dwellings. So quite where they will be for the houses being built over them no-one quite knows!I spoke to the EA and they indicated it was not a matter for them. But as the issue goes back to 1965, I wonder if they have any records as Thames Water have no records from 1954 to 1977 here.They did have date relating to the Thames and flood plains but nothing on the Brook (of Brook road fame) and the increase in storm water.In the case of Osterley, I was supposed to be looking after my cousins place while he is abroad for 3 years. I check the place weekly and sort all the mail.Plenty of letters from LBH for council tax and electoral registers but never anything from either the owner/applicant.Since finding out about the application and subsequent refusal I find that just 2 of the six freeholders of the grounds received a planning application notice.Both objected. The other 4 include the applicant, my cousin and two landlords whom we have not managed to track down.None had and communication from the applicant in any form.I only found out about the trees several weeks after. I had not to be honest noticed as it was winter and had gone over in darkness for a few months.Others though, had noticed and did report it but nothing ensued.But if I applied to build on a part of Lampton Park would I get permission even though it is not mine to build on and could not prove that the owners of the site are giving full approval?Why should the maverick actions of one individual get a green light and leave the remaining 5 freeholders unaware and facing a huge court cost?Ironically, LBH sent a letter threatening legal action over the protected hedge being oversize and unwieldy.  Took several letters reminding them that the hedge is theirs and their responsibility to maintain. It has now not been cut and maintained for 2 years!  They don't seem to have sent a legal notice to themselves!!

Michael Brandt ● 4368d

Vanessa - glad to hear CH is still around.  I can't recall what I was supposed to have done or not done but I do remember being totally bemused !.Michael - I don't disagree with some of your points.  Obviously I attend many planning committees all over the country and it csn be extremely frustrating when the Officer presenting the application makes absolutely no reference to an important issue.  Equally Officer presentations are supposed to be relatively concise as Members are supposed to have all the relevant information in the Officers report.I haven't looked at the flooding issue in any depth but presumably the EA were consulted on the application and raised no objection ?.  If a statutory consultee like the EA raise no objection on flooding grounds then it would be madness for the Council to ignore that lack of objection, because inevitably the matter would end up at appeal and the Council would be taken to the cleaners and have costs awarded against it for unreasonable behaviour, i.e. pursuing a reason for refusal that wasn't backed up by the relevant specialist statutory consultee.The fundamental basis of the planning system, which people often forget and which isn't, as some people think it is, a new thing, is that there is a presumption in favour of development.You mention the site in Osterley, if the application site was owned by 6 separate entities than the applicant would have to serve notice on those other entities either prior to  or at the time of submitting the application.  I'd say there's no actual requirement for the Council to consult the other entities because there are not neighbours to the application site, their land is actually the application site and as long as the applicant has formally notified them of the application, that's the correct process.  The issue of the applicant actually implementing such permission when the land is in the ownership of others is entirely a civil matter, nothing to do with the Council.The trees felled, do you know that work was done without the benefit of the necessary conservation area consent ?.  Was the work reported to the Council to be investigated ? - trust me, you ring the Council to say that a tree within a Conservation Area or protected by a TPO is being worked on and you'll get someone round there immediately, in my old line of work it was the equivalent of a 999 call (and in such circumstances enforcement officers are authorised to caution suspects under the Police & Criminal Evidence Act).

Adam Beamish ● 4368d

I know the individual you refer to and yes he's still around!

Vanessa Smith ● 4369d

In this case, it was not then known about the Brook and the flooding.It was brought up by a few elderly residents who have lived here in excess of  50 years. The Metropolitan Water Board/Thames Water authority records are now archived and in a right mess at the Archives in Clerkenwell. I know because I spent 2 whole days there with a neighbour searching for records of works. But did find a record of the problem and that remedial works were deferred several times in the belief that the whole of the Griffin Park to Half Acre area was to be bulldozed in the same way as the east side of Ealing Road.What was known in the case of the Brook Road site of (which the same objections existed) is that among the main concerns was the power sub-station and the fact that the site carries several 650v cables right through it. Also, that the site is the main access to it for both maintenance, replacement and emergencies as the official access is too narrow due to an oversight when building the flats in Lateward road in 1962 ( it should have been 9ft but is just 7'9".I was one of several residents present at the planning commitee meeting and the visual and verbal presentation made by the officers and the proposers  completely ommited the sub-station.Unfortunately, one of the objecting speakers was unable to get to the meeting in time, but it was on the written objections in any case, which were dismissed in one sentence.With the sub-station completely omitted from the presentation and subsequent discussion,  a resident who noticed and attempted to point this out was prevented from passing a note and then asked to leave when he vocally pointed out the missing sub-station. Now I never believed in conspiracy stuff, but this was right before my eyes. The client is Hounslow, the committee is a majority ruling party, the councillors already refused to represent residents as they cited policy over residents concerns.I was amazed at the one sidedness but equally concerned that due research had not been done and only some of it is now being revealed and confirmed in surveys nearly a year later.So concerns were indeed credible but no-one was listened to.All this is coming out of the clients wallet, LBH and ultimately the taxpayer.It just seems the wrong way to do things, and not in the interests of anyone except the developer who will do rather well out of it.Since then I've found out 9 months after that my cousin's neighbour has been granted planning permission in a conservation area in Osterley to build in grounds owned collectively by 6 freeholders, only one of whom was notified of the application.The applicant also felled 4 trees all listed as part of the original development with no repercussions. Yet here in Brentford, residents have to make a planning application to prune a tree in a conservation area.This now leaves 5 residents with an unaffordable legal action. And someone who will build on our gardens.Not one letter of query has been answered by the Planning dept. Councillors seem unable to do anything about other than suggest a lawyer at huge cost to innocent unsuspecting parties.I've since found out that the applicant is close to several councillors. Of course there is no proof of anything improper taking place, but one cannot help but think something is not quite right. If things are so OK Adam, Then why is all this happening?

Michael Brandt ● 4369d

To be fair, if the arguments put forward by such groups/societies are credible then they will get listened to.  Many of my clients will purposely interact with such groups as part of the pre-app process in order to minimise difficulties further down the line, and I've acted on behalf of such groups before and generally I've always found them to be well informed and rational, although occasionally need to be 'reined in' in terms of their expectations.I always felt it was important to interact with such groups when working at the Council, e.g. the Heston Residents Association, and I had a lengthy chat with David and Vivienne Blackett when I bumped into them in Tesco the other month.Equally like with anything in life you do get the somewhat OTT individuals who think everything is a giant conspiracy (abit like this site sometimes !) and I recall after leaving Hounslow my successor fed some yarn to one relatively well known retired planner who was (maybe still is) quite active in central Hounslow on behalf of residents, and this guy rang me up at my new job some 6 months after I'd left and was rambling on about something which was total nonsense.

Adam Beamish ● 4369d

Also given that we also have a very active civic society in Isleworth that mostly gets totally ignored as if they're are just a nuisance - I'd be surprised if any local authority really paid much attention to them. It's a pity because the people that live in the area do try to work with the authorities in conservation areas.

Vanessa Smith ● 4369d

Whilst meaning no disrespect to the Ealing Civic Society, they aren't the decision makers, so they can't insist that anything is strictly adhered to.

Adam Beamish ● 4369d

In Ealing they are very strict and referred to as rules, even though they are as you say guidelines, but they are nonetheless strictly adhered to overseen by the Ealing Civic Society.

Michael Brandt ● 4369d

I know I'm being pedantic but the reference to conservation "rules" is rather daft as there are no such things, there are planning policies relating to development in conservation areas and there is associated planning guidance relating to conservation areas, but rules they ain't.

Adam Beamish ● 4369d

I've read all the surveys and they contradict themselves a bit here.Nice to see that someone has posted some of the links. It takes a while otherwise.But the issue of the culvert for the brook, the flooding relief for both Brook Road and the Recreation grounds North east corner remain by addmission undetected and unresolved.The issue of contaminated land and UXBs is a good read as is the desire to move the boundary of the footpath and the park. All rather discreetly slipped into the applications.The dormer and roof elevations are not in keeping with the rest of the streets which are visible being an end of terrace and beside the park and open area.And if the conservation rules are truly there for good reason then this application should not have even been resubmitted.Proportionally, both developments do not match the rest of the terraces although the materials are close enough.

Michael Brandt ● 4369d

I am guessing that this has not yet received permission? As it has already been refused once what makes you think it won't be the decision again?

Vanessa Smith ● 4369d

I'm referring to the fact that the notice is not clearly positioned and as a resident right opposite have had not formal notice. Nor for the last three applications or the original one.The notices went to just even numbered properties and some 150m down the road!Happens every time.Yet we do get planning notices for Commerce road!!

Anthony Waller ● 4369d

This may help.The developers have already had one application to amend refused. (in July)They are also intending to have trees removed and or pollarded to allow a view from the amended dwelling.As this will involve a conservation area permission expect the trees to strangely dieback over the next 24 months as is the usual trick deployed to avoid such plansPasted below are some interesting details and underlines why this was never a good idea, the cost is going to come from the local taxpayers and even with a bumper sell of price the profit will be minimal.But the risk of the park returning to a boggy corner and other properties being damp below the flooring may return as the survey never did find out about the culvert for the brook or the flood relief works of 1971System Reference: P/2013/2752Planning Reference: 00681/ADJ12/P2http://planning2.hounslow.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00371528.pdfhttp://planning.hounslow.gov.uk/Planning_CaseNo.aspx?strCASENO=P/2013/1773http://planning2.hounslow.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00371603.pdfhttp://planning2.hounslow.gov.uk/AnitePublicDocs/00364000.pdf

Anthony Waller ● 4369d

If you actually read the correspondence on the application (labelled 'statement other' on the LPA website) any suggestion that this is some kind of 'sneakiness' seems entirely unreasonable, unless you have some knowledge that the content of that letter is factually incorrect ?.

Adam Beamish ● 4369d