Ballymore's "Anytown" Design for Brentford Waved Through by LBH's Planning Committee

Despite the meeting having inexplicably drifted on for several hours when Ballymore's bland design for Brentford High Street was discussed, the application was waved through as expected by majority party councillors on the London Borough of Hounslow's Planning Committee acting dutifully upon officers' recommendations. Few if any meaningful concessions were made to the Community Vision which had been painstakingly drawn up by residents and councillors. Typically the assumption was that the officers and planners understood the complexities of the planning process, whilst members of the Brentford community didn't.

Of them, only Councillor Mel Collins (Brentford) had the courage to break ranks, expressing the view that more could be done towards making the application acceptable to local people and proposing deferral pending more work on the design. Sadly he received no backers and was destined to remain the lone abstention amongst the majority party (Labour) councillors.

DISAPPOINTMENT

Some 200 local people in the public gallery made their disappointment known, with comments such as "Shame on you!" being directed at the unrepentant Committee members.

Although this outcome is a setback for the people of Brentford, there is still much to play for. Only approximately 40% of the design was approved outright with the remainder being outline approval, with full approval still to be given. With a concerted effort residents and traders still have a chance to limit the damage.

It is worth noting that very recently a former Hounslow Conservative councillor who had been a party to approving the infamous 2009 Mogden planning application by Thames Water, which resulted in a predictable (to us) increase in odour rather than the claimed reduction, made an unsolicited intervention on a local community Internet forum to scoff about the fact that he and his family had now moved away from the area and therefore no longer had to live with the consequences of his decision. One wonders whether the Labour councillors who so nonchalantly imposed this appalling eyesore on the people of Brentford will in a few years be similarly in a position to taunt their victims from a faraway country retreat.

Ballymore's Bland Proposal: a Letter from Andrew Dakers - Chair, Brentford High Street Steering Group

Dear friend,

As you will know, since 2006 I have chaired Brentford High Street Steering Group, the town centre regeneration charity.

Tomorrow night is without a doubt a milestone in our town's history. Fifteen years after the last plans were presented, Ballymore's proposals go to planning committee (7.30, Civic Centre, Hounslow). On one level I am glad to see a scheme with many of the elements needed to move forward. However, I am bitterly disappointed that so many of the ideas put forward by the community for less density and more beautiful buildings (respectful of the town's historic waterside location) have been ignored.

Brentford is a suburban market town, not Oxford Street!

You can watch a video produced by Cat Berry and Tom Keane here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpRVquj12Ww (It's had over 1000 views in just 5 days!)

My personal view, and the steering group's, is that more work should be done on:

* the 'Design Code' and the aesthetics of the detailed scheme over the next six months;

* clear plans should be set out for how and when Watermans will move into the town centre; and

* independent traders should be supported through the transition.

Ballymore and the Council have time that can be used constructively to make these improvements: it will take at least a year to complete Compulsory Purchase Orders on some parts of the site, and raise the funds to move the scheme forward.

Local residents' concerns are well expressed on: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Brentford-High-Street/153798158085687 Twitter: https://twitter.com/brentfordhighst

Whether or not you can make the meeting please email the members of Planning Committee in the last few hours to remind them of the importance of getting these details right. You can get their fifteen (!) email addresses from http://tinyurl.com/lbhplanning

If you can make it tomorrow night - we need all the support possible to make sure that the regeneration keeps moving forward, but with the attention to detail that our wonderful town deserves.

With best wishes,

Andrew

Brentford High Street Steering Group Raises Awareness for Meeting

The community-led Brentford High Street Steering Group has produced a leaflet reminding locals that the big meeting of the Planning Committee to decide the fate of the disappointing Ballymore application will take place at Hounslow Civic Centre this Thursday.

After years of discussion and input from the community it would appear the developer has determined to press ahead with an application which has been described by locals as "too high, too dense and too ugly". The plans include eighteen bland 6-11 storey blocks and 929 residential units crammed onto the land south of the Brentford High Street. The proposed development is clearly out of sync with the existing character of the local area and contains no clear plan for community facilities or small businesses.

Unfortunately there is a widespread belief amongst the community that Hounslow Council is determined to rush this through without the requirement for any meaningful concessions to local people.

BHSSG Chair Andrew Dakers commented: "For, against or wanting modifications to Ballymore's proposals for Brentford town centre, this is a community that cares. But does everyone know that the critical decision is about to be made?"

"If you want to help make sure that local residents - your neighbours - know that the key planning decision will be made next Thursday 27 November, 7.30pm at Hounslow Civic Centre".

The leaflet can be downloaded in PDF format by clicking this link. The meeting takes place this Thursday, 27th November 2014 at Hounslow Civic Centre from 7.30 pm.

Hounslow Labour's All-Out Assault on Community

"In for a penny, in for a pound," goes the old saying. The concept is that if one has decided to commit to a particular outcome in any given situation then one should focus entirely and unrelentingly upon that outcome and not dither along the way.

Hounslow's ruling Labour Group would appear to be embracing this concept with gusto as we approach the local elections of 2014. Not unreasonably confident of a rout in its traditional quarrel with the Tories, Labour has quite clearly decided that the time is right to try to face down what it considers to be its real enemies - the organised community and residents' groups around the borough amongst which the Independent Community Group (ICG) almost certainly enjoys pride of place at the very summit of the hate list.

I have related elsewhere how Hounslow Council's Planning Committee, now safely returned in one piece to the Stone Age under the stewardship of Councillor Ruth Cadbury, eagerly endorsed the decision of the former Lead Member (Councillor Ruth Cadbury) to reject a series of amendments to the statutory Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which had been drawn up by residents under the auspices of the expanding Group of 15+ and which would have given the SCI real meaning. The amendments had previously been adopted by the Planning Committee when it operated under the leadership of the unusually forward-thinking Labour councillor Theo Dennison.

Following on from this decision we have news that the current Lead Member for Planning, Regeneration, Housing, Celebrity Come Dancing and Virtually Everything Else is seeking to put an end to all formal contact between officers of the Council and G15+ and to replace it with a "forum", chaired by and with terms of reference drawn up by the local authority as opposed to the residents themselves as is presently the case. In other words a classic manifestation of the old "control or destroy" approach that has informed local Labour's relationship with community groups for at least a quarter of a century.

Meanwhile here in Isleworth the message we in the ICG are picking up amounts, essentially, to the old football supporters' invocation to "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough". In particular the threat to Isleworth Public Hall has begun once again to loom large, with sham consultations announced to coincide with the busy holiday period and timed to conclude after a decision has already been taken.

Council turns its guns on tenants

One area in which the gauntlet really has been thrown down is in respect of the 24,000 rented and leasehold properties which are owned by the local authority and managed by Hounslow Homes. Here the various resident groups come together under the umbrella of the Hounslow Federation of Tenants' and Residents' Associations (HFTRA), which has historically received and is entitled to expect funding from within the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) - the account to which rents and leaseholder charges are paid.

It was recently announced by the seemingly all-powerful Lead Member that funding to HFTRA had been withdrawn under what would appear, at least from the outside, to be highly dubious circumstances. A proposed meeting between HFTRA and the Lead Member to discuss the matter was cancelled by the latter as a punishment for HFTRA having the audacity to speak to the local press, although this publicity-shyness did not prevent the Lead Member from exploiting his advantage of office by widely circulating a £12,000+ propaganda mailout attacking HFTRA at the expense of the very tenants it represents.

Battle lines

Shocked and angered though we as a community may be we should at least be grateful that this most authoritarian of Labour administrations is setting out its stall in a more or less honest fashion, leaving absolutely no room for doubt as to where it stands on the question of community empowerment and in so doing clearly defining the battle lines for the forthcoming local elections in those areas in which the community is sufficiently well-organised to be able to make a challenge.

Activists should not fear a "trap" as such, this is simply about Labour trying to deal with its potentially more dangerous enemies in the organised community at a time when its conventional adversaries are at their weakest.

From their perspective it makes sense, but that does not mean it is a challenge we should walk away from. A handful of community, other independent and small party councillors, even operating in opposition to a large Labour majority administration, would set us up nicely for the much more favourable situation that 2018 is likely to present.

UPDATE: Planning Committee Confirms Endorsement of Residents' Proposals

Further to my recent article on the London Borough of Hounslow's Statement of Community Invovlement and the radical amendments submitted to it by an emergent residents' umbrella organisation known as the Group of 15, the council's Planning Committee has now formally confirmed that it has adopted the residents' proposals in full and unabridged.

The Decision Notice, published in amended form earlier today, now reads: "The Committee endorsed and adopted the Group 15 resident’s groups (sic) amendments to the SCI as its own and it was agreed that comments would go forward as part of the response to the consultation."

This unambiguous declaration of support for a community-led approach to planning in the borough stands the amendment in good stead for when the matter goes to Cabinet later this month, and to Borough Council in January or February next year.

LATEST: Planning Committee Adopts Community Involvement Agenda...Or Does It?

I am now free to reveal that a crucial amendment to the London Borough of Hounslow's Statement of Community Involvement, submitted by a powerful and expanding bloc of residents' groups from across the borough, has been formally endorsed by the borough's Planning Committee.

The Group of 15 residents' alliance, which includes the Independent Community Group (ICG), took the view that the original Statement was effectively a box-ticking response to the requirement laid down by central government for local authorities to adopt a formal process of community involvement in decision-making. Focusing to begin with on the important area of planning, the Group (which actually now comprises more than fifteen individual organisations) thus resolved to redress this deficiency by offering the following amendments:

1. The Statement of Community Involvement is a contract between the community and the Council with the purpose of encouraging the involvement of the public in all aspects of the planning process.

2. The SCI should be reviewed annually alongside the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report.

3. The SCI should enable and encourage the public to offer their views on planning policies and applications at Planning Committee and Area Forums where applications are called in for Members and the public to comment in a consultation capacity.

4. Registered amenity groups should be able to exercise a “community call in” where they believe a planning application would have a serious and adverse impact on their local community.

5. The draft SCI should be reviewed to remove ambiguous wording ensuring clear commitments are made that the public can have confidence the Council mean to deliver.

The document was submitted by:

Bedford Park Society, Brentford Community Council, Chiswick Protection Group, The Grove Park Group, Heston Residents’ Association, Hounslow & District History Society, Friends of Hounslow Heath, Independent Community Group, The Isleworth Society, The Old Isleworth Four Roads Residents’ Association, St John’s Residents’ Association, St. Stephen’s Residents’ Association, Strand on the Green Association, Thornton-Mayfield Residents’ Association, West Chiswick & Gunnersbury Society, The West London River Group

The residents' case was ably presented to the Planning Committee by Andy Murray from the Grove Park Group and Councillor Sheila O'Reilly (Conservative, Osterley & Spring Grove) proposed that the Committee endorse it in its entirety, commenting that if anything the residents' amendments erred on the side of timidity in their approach. The Chair, Councillor Theo Dennison (Labour, Syon) was clearly enthusiastic and supportive and reassured residents that whatever choice of wording was adopted there would be no room for ambiguity. The amendment was adopted unanimously by the Committee.

So far so good, however it did not go unnoticed by residents that some members of the Committee, most notably Councillor Steve Curran (Labour, Syon), seemed to be keen to stress the view that the Planning Committee was forwarding a residents' consultation document to Borough Council for discussion rather than endorsing it in its own capacity. And, sure enough, when the minutes of the discussion were published this interpretation was indeed the one that was contained therein!

It was also noted that the Lead Member for Planning - Councillor Ruth Cadbury (Labour, Brentford) - did not attend this part of the meeting, choosing instead to turn up shortly after the item had concluded, and didn't seem that eager to discuss it with residents after the meeting.

The discrepancy in the record of the meeting was swiftly reported to the Chair via Twitter as soon as the erroneous minutes were published and his response was clear: "I have read decision notice now and agree it's not what PC agreed: G15 amendment was endorsed and goes forward as PC's view."

The community now has a clear commitment from the Planning Committee that it wholeheartedly endorses a resident-led approach to community involvement in the planning process, and that endorsement must inevitably carry a huge amount of weight when the matter comes to Borough Council (we believe) for decision.

I hope to be able to bring more news on this historic and far-reaching local development in due course.