Forum Topic

Brentford Stadium plans passed...

and the tories abstained!!!!I actually objected due to height, mass and density of the tower blocks (and the lack of S106 for housing etc...) but very amused that despite all the huffing and puffing of David Giles and the like they could not bring themselves to vote against, hypocrisy or what....

Iain Muir ● 4263d25 Comments

Phil,Yes I found it rather strange that all the Labour Councillors voted in favour of the application even though the application was clearly in breach of borough, GLA and national planning guidelines and policy. One hopes they were not whipped into voting against their better judgement.In contrast five Conservative Councillors, including this representing wards near Lionel Road, voted against the application and Conservative Councillor Paul Jabbal voted for it.  That shows that the Conservatives were not operating a whip.I wonder does Brentford Labour Councillor Ruth Cadbury support the application ? She said it wasn't a done deal some weeks ago and she  then resigned from the Committee. Very strange.In

David Giles ● 4258d

DavidEvery Labour councillor on the Planning Committee voted in favour of the application.  Every Conservative councillor (except one) voted against it.In my experience it is often thus, either that way around or in reverse.  You are right to say that party politics should not come into these things, but often it quite clearly does.

Phil Andrews ● 4258d

Phil, Councillors  may well have been supportive of a presentation made in the past and encouraged Brentford FC to proceed with it detailed plans. But now that a detailed planning application has been made for the Stadium and an outline planning application has been submitted for the associated enabling high rise housing and hotel development, then it is up to Councillors, the Mayor and the Secretary of State to consider these applications objectively in accordance with planning guidelines, rules and regulations and not on party political grounds.

David Giles ● 4258d

Yes, I submitted a representation on behalf of a nearby complex of flats (Temeraire Place) - the representation is reported in the appropriate section of the Officer's report.They approached my firm and obviously I was well placed to handle this, and it makes it considerably 'easier' when I live round the corner and my professional view and my personal view is much the same (which isn't always the case !).

Adam Beamish ● 4258d

Sorry David but that is just an insult to the intelligence of every single person who reads this forum.The Executive under the Tory-led administration of 2006-2010 was given a full presentation of the Lionel Road plans by Brentford FC and it was made perfectly clear to everybody there that there would be substantial enabling development alongside the new stadium.The plans mooted at the time were different to those which comprised the final application but they included a thirty (30) storey tower block at one end of the site and another not very much smaller at the opposite end.The simple fact is that had that administration not supported the plans at that crucial time they would not have progressed any further.

Phil Andrews ● 4258d

No at you Adam. So many threads of enlightenment on this subject not surprising if you missed it.You said something apropos the decision which suggested that you were involved professionally in advising somebody on the Lionel Road proposal.Were/are you?

Guy Lambert ● 4258d

Which question Guy ?.  Or is that directed at DG ?.

Adam Beamish ● 4258d

I'm sure DG has a direct line to Boris and will instruct him to call it in.BTW, talking of unanswered questions, I didn't see an answer to the one I asked you.

Guy Lambert ● 4258d

Fair point David, although it's important to stress that just because the application is being referred to the SoS that doesn't necessarily mean the SoS will actually "call in" the application (i.e. take the decision away from LBH).Essentially both Boris and Eric could decide not to get involved and leave the decision up to Hounslow.  Indeed I'll be surprised (I've been surprised before !) if Boris does call the application in, not so sure about Eric.

Adam Beamish ● 4258d

AdamI am sorry I haven't replied to your query on CW4.Page 202 of the Officers Report recommends "that planning permission be granted subject the the following conditions....., subject to:"(i) The application being referred to the Mayor of London, in accordance with the Mayor of London Order 2008"(ii) The application being referred to the Secretary of State, in accordance with Circular 02/09 noting the ouitstanding objection of English Heritage. "Does that not mean that the application will be referred both to the Mayor and to the Secretary of State as a matter of course ?

David Giles ● 4258d

Also noteworthy David that you still haven't answered my query on CW4 as to the basis for your claim that the SoS will categorically have a say on this application ?.The SoS may call the application in, I agree with that possibility, but may and categorically will are two very different things.

Adam Beamish ● 4259d

PhilThe previous Conservative/ICG administration supported the idea of a move to Lionel Road in principle. But that was before the planning application was submitted which involves 910 high rise apartments and a hotel as well as a 20,000 seater stadium. The planning application breaches borough, GLA and national planning guidelines and therefore some Councillors voted to reject it.In any case members of the Planning Committtee vote as individuls and not in accordance with the Party Whip. Councillor Paul Jabbal was perfectly free to vote for the application. It is noteworthy that not a single Councillor from Brentford or Chiswick voted for the application. The three Chiswick Councillors voted to reject the application and the three Brentford Councillors resigned and were replaced by Councillors from other wards who duly voted for the application,

David Giles ● 4259d

These wouldn't be the same ones who swore blind a planning document was on the website only to retract that the next day under assiduous pressure from the Group of 15

Ian Speed ● 4260d

"...the ruling Labour group's misguided and naive support for the project"DavidThis project was supported by the Conservative Group during the previous administration.  Indeed it was remarked at the time that without the support of that administration the application would not have progressed.  Were they too acting under pressure from the Labour Party?It was also supported by Conservative councillor Paul Jabbal on the night.

Phil Andrews ● 4262d

"will be subject to review by the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles MP, a no nonsense Yorkshireman."It really makes me laugh to see this comment,look at the amount of moaning on W4 objecting to the support for the plans that was from all over - presumably Brentford supporters - and the comments that it wasn't fair that people who didn't live in the area should have a view etc. etc. But it's O.K. for a Yorkshireman to pontificate - as for the 'no-nonsense' well, that really is a matter of opinion.

Vanessa Smith ● 4262d

Adam,I am not sure if you have read the complete Officer's Report or the Addendum that was issued to the members of the Planning Committee rather outrageously the first time on 5th December - the date of the meeting. If you had I think you would agree that it contains numerous contradictions and very questionable statements and is biased in favour of the applicants. This is understandable in view of the ruling Labour group's misguided and naive support for the project.The Grove Park Group's objections were not included in the Report and their spokesman was denied the opportunity to speak on behalf of Grove Park residents who will be directly affected by this ridiculous and inappropriate scheme.I personally feel sorry for the Planning Officers who appear to have been  influenced by the political pressure bring put on them by the Labour Party to support this ridiculous, financially unviable gamble by Matthew Benham, the owner of Brentford FC and some of the land in the Lionel Road area.The application will go to the Mayor of London who will not be subject  to the same parochial and political influences. And even if he approves it, it will be subject to review by the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles MP, a no nonsense Yorkshireman.

David Giles ● 4262d

One other point David regarding the Officer's report.  Whilst I felt it somewhat looked at the application through 'rose-tinted spectacles' it was extremely thorough and and a great many Officers and relevant consultees had contributed towards it - as I know only too well any report to committee goes through a plethora of Officers for agreement/amendment before being printed.I know Shane well (he was at LBH when I started there in 2001) and he's no fool.  Despite my personal views against the proposals I felt it was unreasonable of one of 'your' Councillors (one to be clear I actually regard quite highly) having a public go at the Officers simply for reaching a different conclusion to the balancing act that needed to be undertaken when determining this application than the conclusion that Councillor reached.But that's the problem with politicians, not long ago another of 'your' Councillor (whom again I actually regard quite highly and seemingly the feeling was mutual when he used to regularly turn to me off forum for planning advice) had a right dig at me on CW4.  Why ? - simply because I expressed a personal view about a planning matter that he didn't share (despite me also acknowledging that with my professional hat on I'd have come to the same conclusion as Officers), and I was firmly told how professional LBH Officers are and how correct they are etc.The inevitable conclusion such conduct implies is that Officers are only professional/correct/thorough when they come down on your side...

Adam Beamish ● 4262d

Your faith in BoJo and 'Who ate all the pies Pickles' is laughable. Boris is allowing Fulham FC to build out into the river against many objections, and both of them are more than prepared to let Dodgy Dave's new Chinese chums run amok in London over Lewisham Council's and English Heritage's objections to protect Convoys Wharf in Deptford. This is a very important part of London's heritage and a dockyard dating from Tudor times. Boris has basically told the Chinese they can do what they like, so if anyone is looking to him or Porky Pickles for salvation I'd give up now if I were you.

Vanessa Smith ● 4262d

I'm surprised that the SoS' criteria don't include 'David Giles thinks monstrous (or even monsterous)'

Guy Lambert ● 4262d

David, what will your position be if Boris doesn't call the application into the GLA ? - which I don't think he will.Also, and you're not the first person to suggest this, why will the SoS be involved ?.  Again the SoS would have to call the application in, based on the following criteria (cut and pasted from the relevant ministerial statement) :"The Secretary of State will, in general, only consider the use of his call-in powers if planning issues of more than local importance are involved. Such cases may include, for example, those which in his opinion:may conflict with national policies on important matters;may have significant long-term impact on economic growth and meeting housing needs across a wider area than a single local authority;could have significant effects beyond their immediate locality;give rise to substantial cross-boundary or national controversy;raise significant architectural and urban design issues; ormay involve the interests of national security or of foreign Governments.However, each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits."Yes an argument can be made that some of the above points apply, but a similar argument could be made regarding many schemes.  Someone also made the erroneous suggestion that just because English Heritage object that automatically means the SoS will be involved.Don't get me wrong, on a personal level I'm opposed to the application.  From a professional perspective my own view is that there are arguments both ways, but the balance tips towards the harm rather than the benefits.  Lots seems to rely on onfield success which, as we all know, money doesn't always buy and which new stadiums don't always bring.  Equally new standalone stadiums have been known to bankrupt a club, e.g. the sorry tale of Darlington and the dangerous reliance upon a single individual, in that case George Reynolds, so I can see the obvious need for any stadium to form part of a mixed use development.But in simple terms, it all just seems too much - density is just a number, but usually an overdevelopment of a site will manifest itself in other ways, and I think the numerous shortcomings of the current proposals demonstrate that.

Adam Beamish ● 4263d

Has his move to Wigan been confirmed?

Keith Iddon ● 4263d

Far worse is the loss of Uwe Rossler, the best manager Brentford had had in a long time.Without a successful and competetive team, a new stadium may as well be a completely pointless exercise.

Anthony Waller ● 4263d

Paul Jabbal is entitled to vote as he sees fit. He comes from the other end of the borough and his constituents will not be as affected by ths monstrous new development as much as residents of Brentford, Chiswick, Ealing and Kew. The Councillors who voted for the scheme predominantly come from the other end of the borough and appeared to know very little about the local area. Three of them were only newly appointed and obviously did not have time to read all the evidence.The objectors made a very sound case on planning grounds and I have no doubt we have not heard the last of this issue as it wikll now go to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, and to the Secretary of State, Eric Pickles. The scheme contravenes Hounslow, GLA and national planning guidelines and its financial viability is now in doubt in view of the revelation that the stadium will cost over £70 million to build. Because the stadium is so so expensive, the scheme is dependent on developers paying high prices for the lad on which to build the 910 high rise, densely packed apartments. Some of the buildings will be only 5 metres apart instead of the 20 metres or so normally required.Its lack of affordable housing is in itself a reason for rejection by the Mayor.There are also serious concerns about traffic, transport, parking and the extremely restricted and small size of the site which incorporates 910 high rise apartments as well as a hotel and commercial premises. In the event of a fire, riot or other problem evacuation of a stadium surrounded on three sides by electrified railway lines would be a major problem. Certain aspects of the Planning Officers' Report were contradictory and deeply flawed and could be subject to legal challenge in due course.In addition,  Brentford FC is losing £5 million a year and may have a problem meeting the financial viability criteria laid down by the Football Association. Matthew Benham has been keeping the club going for the past few years but it remains to be seem if he has the funds both to do that to the tune of £5 million a year and to fund the building of the £70 million stadium in advance of receiving the proceeds from the sale of the sites, some of which I understand he does not yet own. The price of the sites is bound to increase spectacularly as a result of last night's decision.

David Giles ● 4263d

They didn't abstain, all Tory Councillors apart from Jabbal (who voted in favour and presumably will now be publicly 'disowned' by David Giles) opposed the recommendation to approve.

Adam Beamish ● 4263d

Sounds about right!

Vanessa Smith ● 4263d