Forum Topic

The problem is that the council always seems to be working against the club rather than with it. The glass roof put there to keep residents happy but against building restrictions. What are the club supposed to do? They are a business, a major one that adds to the community but they need money and are doing their best to keep everyone happy which face it the monstrosity that is the Travelodge did not do and they got permission. What they are proposing adds not only to the enjoyment and comfort of the supporters but also to the community. The club needs money to survive and every idea they have had has been made so unattractive to the residents because of the council's involvement and I'm talking about the ridiculous percentage of affordable housing proposed for the housing plans, or the council have put back planning permission rather than help. These plans were drawn up months ago so if there were council concerns about emergency access and building regulations, why did they not tell them or work with them? The council will have just as much to answer for if the club goes under because of its inaction as it will for it's meddling. It doesn't matter if you are a supporter or not. They run programmes for children. Just a couple of weeks ago they had Christmas carols and Santa for the kids and locals. What they are proposing will help children with learning difficulties of all kinds and the disabled to have access to facilities within the club that they don't at the moment. It adds to the community and the council need to see that before they look for the red tape.

Claire Peleschka ● 7434d

As I said in my earlier post this was a complex application.It should be noted that the council officers writing the report did not make a clear recommendation to members to approve or reject the application. This is very unusual.I suggest those of you who are interested in the details of the application download it from the hounslow.gov.uk website. As a councillor in another part of the borough I would have found it easier to deal with the issues if they had been dealt with in a series of separate applications for Ealing Road, New Road and Brooke Road South.A problem in Ealing Road was that the new roof cover proposed, though smaller than that refused in 1996, included a glass rear to overcome objections in Ealing Road about loss of light. The report stated that this would not be permitted under government building regulations.In relation to the function room at the rear of New Road it was stated that there were concerns about exit distances in the event of emergency. The report also stated that there were issues relating to disabled access.I could offer a number of similar issues in the report, but hope these help to make my point. In relation to the planning code of conduct members operate under this requires them to behave in a reasonable and unbiased manner. Some Brentford supporters believe that anything they ask for should be granted. Similarly, some residents believe that nothing new should be allowed at Griffin Park. The reality is that some development is possible. As this is not my area committee I do not have sufficient information to say whether the current application is acceptable.To conclude, be aware that every councillor involved in planning wants to play to the gallery by doing what appears to be the popular option. However, planning decisions are quasi-judicial, and members are required to give their planning reasons for the decision. Councillor Luke Kirton was unable to take part in last night's discussion because of his Brentford connection. If all 12 councillors were Bees supporters and season ticket holders there would have been no one eligible to take part.

John Connelly ● 7434d