Forum Topic

Riverside Housing in Grove Park

Well balanced article in this week’s edition - thank you editor. Anyone walking by the entrance to Upper Chiswick Staithe should stop and look at the glorious trees - all 30 - scheduled for felling, evicting the large number of resident birds, bats and owls. The occupants of the house are gone and under the new “boutique” ownership unrepaired windows have collapsed. In recent storms one must fear that rain has poured into this locally listed house in a conservation area.The weeds grow unchecked adding to the air of neglect. This is in stark contrast to the “all will be well” message being marketed, seeking to calm local concerns. It will be interesting to see if marketing can convince the planning committee that the environmental destruction of this unique site should be allowed to proceed. Especially on a flood plain in stark contrast to LBH’s excellent Green and Blue Strategy and Government warnings about such activity…

Paul Nessling ● 1905d20 Comments

It's hard to see how permission could be granted for developing this site on anything like the scale proposed. Given the supposedly overwhelming need  for greening our environment and the very real and present concern over flooding - not least from losing so much natural drainage to building- surely it is time councils (and governments) employed a bit of joined-up thinking.They really can't keep  saying one thing and doing another. The over-development of virtually every corner of West London can't go on - or if it does we will surely suffer the consequences.

Bruce Hammal ● 1905d

Absolutely agree Bruce. I hope LBH will conduct proper investigation into surface water drainage on the site and also a genuine baseline biodiversity survey. The developer's tree report is misleading, describing the trees as generally small and of little merit which is just not true if you take a look as Paul Nessling suggests. According to application, 30 out of 33 mature trees will be removed whcih will have a huge impact on CO2 capture capability, water retention and wildlife on the site. Building next to the river at the bottom of a slope which is at high risk of flooding is just lunacy. A lot of the modelling that developer's Flood Risk Assessment uses is out of date. We need to wake up to the seriousness of the climate crisis that is happening now. I hope that people will take a few moments to submit their comments and ensure their views are heard. Deadline is 18th August  Planning@hounslow.gov.uk  Ref P/2021/2827

Mukti J Campion ● 1904d

Sadly Bruce I fear it will. They seem to be itching to build on any scrap of land they can find. Developrs have the ear (or pockets) of local government and ministers.

Basil Finnis ● 1904d

It's sad that gardens appear to be given no proper status especially in conservation areas. In many ways the exceptional garden at 17 Hartington Road is worthy of consideration in its own right as part of a Conservation area, providing as it does benefits to the wider area in many respects, not least its river frontage. Any works to even a quite small tree in a Conservation area requires permission, and total removal would probably normally be be refused by the Council, yet this application requires the felling of 30 of them! To even think about compromising the valuable role played by this land in mitigating flood risk is frankly mad.Of course in addition to this there is  the banal nature of the proposed new houses which frankly are a disgrace in such a prominent position on the river. And this is all for what? To enrich the developer to the max and provide unremarkable homes to four (yes four) wealthy purchasers. I do hope Hounslow will grow a backbone,and say no, though seemingly a quiet word with Robert Jenrick will probably  be enough to see injustice done.

Bruce Hammal ● 1904d

I have to say as an interested onlooker and resident of Isleworth which is also under pressure from inappropriate development, I sympathise with everything that has been said on this thread. The proposed houses are just awful -really is this the best that someone can come up with, given that no. 17 is a lovely building? It is to be hoped that Hounslow's planners tell these greedy developers where to stick their plans.

Vanessa Smith ● 1904d

"Any works to even a quite small tree in a Conservation area requires permission."That's not correct.  Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 whilst any tree works in a Conservation Area require six weeks notice to be given to the Council only a tree with a Tree Preservation Order actually requires permission.  The notice gives the Council the opportunity to try and put a Tree Preservation Order on the tree.  You can't go ahead with the works within six weeks of the notice unless you have the Council's permission but after that you can go ahead whatever the Council says, unless they have slapped a TPO on the tree.  It is true (the last time that I looked) that the only way in Hounslow for notice to be given is via the Planning portal, which gives the impression that permission is being requested, but that is not the situation in law.  If there is no TPO, the Council does not have the right to put conditions on the proposed work (e.g. to say that only a reduction of 30% is acceptable rather than the proposed 50% reduction).See: https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200126/applications/60/consent_types/14andhttps://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/211

Andrzej Kowalski ● 1904d

You're right of course - sorry, I was just making a general point, not attempting to provide a guide to the process. Apologies if I misled anyone, though I rather think this observation can fairly be described as failing to see the wood for the trees.

Bruce Hammal ● 1904d

I am not an expert on tree preservation orders but as I understand it any one can request that a TPO be placed by the Local Authority on any tree (with certain limits). You do not have to own the land on which the tree is situated.Here's a step-by-step guide:Visit www.fixmystreet.com Enter your postcode or click "...use my location" below it. Click the "Report a problem here" button or click on the map to get started.Drag the pin to the exact location of the tree you’d like to protect. If you're applying to protect more than one tree, drag the pin to the middle of these trees and at step 8 explain in detail which trees you're applying to protect.On the left, select "Trees" from the Category dropdown menu. Use the "Other" category. If all else fails use www.writetothem.com  to provide your councillors with the information outlined below so that they can pass it on.In the "Summarise the problem" box type "Tree Preservation Order application".Add a photo of the tree you’d like to protect if you want (this isn’t necessary but may be helpful).In the "Explain what’s wrong" box, type the species of the tree and provide the reasons why you’re seeking protection. Does any one wish to start the ball rolling by requesting a TPO for an individual tree?

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 1904d

According to Andrzej this is something the council should be able to do itself.  It would  of course require someone to access the garden. There are some rudimentary details of the trees on the planning application. Anyone interested should look at the application;  the documents on the flood risk assesment are particularly revealing, not least because they show how much of a battle the developers have (or should have) on their hands to clear this hurdle, and how much time and money they are investing in the project. On the day that the IPCC put the world on "code red" it seems almost inconceivable that any development that increases the environmental risk should not be automatically refused. It's interesting that the Environment Agency recommends the application be turned down because it fails to address the impact on flood risk in the area.

Bruce Hammal ● 1904d

Couldn't it be argued that every development that increases the amount of housing also increases environmental risk? I don't know what powers planning authorities have to block developments on environmental grounds but hopefully some of them will be available to prevent this scheme.

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1903d

Jeremy - there are of course environmental and ecological hurdles that developers have to jump over but they are experts at doing that. At the moment politicians leading most parties believe that there is a housing shortage that can only be met by building on every spare piece of land. What is really required is for someone to say that allowing London to grow ever bigger is creating huge environmental problems for the future. To raise only one unpleasant little issue - where will all the sewage go? Mogden is already at fully capacity when it rains.

Cllr Sam Hearn ● 1903d

London may be growing bigger in population terms but not in area as the protection given by the government to the 'green belt' puts the onus on the capital to make sure sufficient housing is built. This is why we are getting so many tower blocks at the moment.Doesn't the Super Sewer deal with capacity issues in the sewage network?

Jeremy Parkinson ● 1903d

There's a degree of irony in Sam's post as it is after all SOS Robert Jenrick who wouldn't allow the London Plan to be formally published until the housing targets for the Boroughs which comprise Greater London were increased.Of course a cynic might say that was because the majority of 'blue' voters live within or close to the Green Belt and thus the more housing built within Greater London the less pressure on allowing development within the Green Belt, therefore keeping those of the same political colour happy.As for infrastructure, given the significant sums LPA's should now be raking on from Community Infrastructure Levy one would expect to see the associated improvements, although even I will believe it when I see it.Certainly at the moment I can say without hesitation that the service I am receiving from local authorities is the worst it has been in 23 years of working in the planning sector, and there is no excuse or justification for public services to be as bad as they are.

Adam Beamish ● 1903d

"..there is no excuse or justification for public services to be as bad as they are."Oh, I dunno, I'm sure they could think of some - Covid, Brexit, Cycleways, the EU, Climate Change, Olympics, Trump, the BBC, the New World Order, Putin, the Illuminati, Jeremy Corbyn, Dr Beeching.......

Richard Greenhough ● 1903d

It may not be a justification but surely the reason you are experiencing poor service from planning departments at the moment is Covid related absences. I've been trying to make contact with another government department for several months and they are basically uncontactable with their answerphone saying most staff are working from home. The concern with developments such as this one on Hartington Road is that already understaffed departments are seeing high levels of absenteeism and a backlog is building up which will make a robust challenge to opportunistic planning applications unlikely.

Felicity Caborn ● 1900d

Of course Felicity, but just because staff are working from home or some might have been unwell is no justification for public services to be providing this poor a service - and that service has implications for everyone, not just residents but also developers.For example at the moment it's relatively common for Councils to take upwards of 5 weeks just to validate applications, which means it's impossible for Councils to then determine those applications within 8 weeks because there's a mandatory 21 day consultation period.  My current record is 10 weeks as I submitted an application to Liverpool City Council on 4th June and here we are on 13th August, the application hasn't been validated, chasers are ignored/rebuffed and neither I nor my client can do anything about it, I can't appeal because the application isn't valid, I can't appeal disputing the Council saying the application is invalid because the Council haven't said it is invalid et, etc.How come I, as a sole trader, successfully run a planning consultancy business throughout the last 18 months without a penny in Government support and for that business to have doubled its monthly invoicing in the last 6 months (to a level that is frankly beyond my capacity and I am hoping that things quieten down soon) yet a Council can't offer a basic level of service ?.  If I'm ill, for an hour or a week, there's no-one to cover for me, yet my clients still get the service they expect me from me.Accountability and public services don't exist in the same sentence.

Adam Beamish ● 1900d

I tend to agree with Adam's sentiments on this. I think Covid has become a convenient excuse and the 'go to' reason for shoddy service. I have yet to speak to anyone who has been satisfied with trying to contact their GP surgery for instance, it is almost as if they have pulled up their drawbridge and retreated. A lot of Hounslow's employees already worked from home part of the time, long before Covid, and whilst understanding people's caution in some cases that has been taken to ridiculous lengths. I know planning enforcement informed the local amenity society that they would not come out to visit a site as they  were 'not an essential service'. Well, that would depend whether or not you were some poor soul near some eyesore that affected where you live wouldn't it? Getting enforcement to act at the best of times is hard but now it has become a joke. It really didn't matter who you tried to get hold of it was the same old excuse trotted out. When you think of our NHS staff in hospitals, emergency services, food deliveries, shop staff, posties and many more who ploughed on through all of it, it does beg the question that Adam highlighted don't you think?

Vanessa Smith ● 1899d

Adam, do tell us more about how we can be like you?

John Hall ● 1899d

https://www.ft.com/content/c5737fbb-2893-4a5a-be5e-965785f1a37bPresumably this makes it a little more difficult for the Govt.

Philippa Bond ● 1899d

Sadly Mogden will not be connected to the 'Super Sewer' which only starts at Hammersmith.

Stephen Newell ● 1898d