Memorandum submitted by Councillor Genevieve
M Hibbs (BW 68)
1. WHO I AM
AND WHY
I HAVE AN
INTEREST IN
THIS INQUIRY
1.1 I have been an elected member since
2002. I am now part of the coalition Executive in the London Borough
of Hounslow.
1.1.1 Planning has been a major interest
of mine from 2002 to the present, and I have been on the local
and main, Sustainable Development, committees. I have attended
CABE sponsored, councillor planning training with London Open
House and am currently attending cross disciplinary planning training
by Urban Design London.
2. ILLEGAL BRIDGE
AT BULLS
BRIDGE
2.1 Early in my experience as a councillor,
in 2004, I opted to coordinate the response of residents to an
application for a private bridge to be built over the Grand Union
Canal.
Unsuitable Location
2.2 The bridge was to be located within
500 metres of the division of the canal at Bulls Bridge to serve
the Paddington Arm as well as the new Hayes By Pass bridge (less
that 20 years old), in one direction, and a similar distance in
the other direction to the longstanding Western Road bridge. There
would then be four bridges within some 750 metres, including two
new ones.
2.3 The footings of the bridge would obtrude
into the towpath on one side and into the canal itself on the
other.
2.3.1 The cut in to the towpath would be
sufficiently to prevent vehicles gaining access. The fishermen
would not able to access this very popular fishing competition
location. Low-loaders would no longer be able to gain access to
enable the residential boats to be raised for servicing.
2.3.2 The bridge was designed to cut into
a 120 year old residential wharf with its footings in the canal.
Existing facility for the residential boats to be raised on the
their side of the canal would be prevented by the other footings
of the bridge being in the canal itself, and cutting the residential
wharf in two
2.3.3 British Waterways made no representation
to oppose the design of the bridge which is clearly contrary to
their own guidelines. BW bridge design guidelines are mostly VERY
well hidden (as are other inconvenient papers).
The London Plan
Policy 4C. 22 Structures over and into the Blue
Ribbon Network
The Mayor will, and boroughs should, protect
the unique character and openness of the Blue Ribbon Network.
Proposals for new structures should be accompanied by a risk assessment
detailing the extent of their impact on navigation, hydrology
and biodiversity, and mitigation measures proposed to address
the adverse impacts identified. Proposals for structures over
or into the water space for uses that do not specifically require
a waterside location should be resisted.
4.126 Structures across and into rivers
and canals are vital for effective communications and service
provision. Bridges are also monuments and tourist attractions.
New structures should be restricted to structures that support
activities that specifically require a waterside location or help
Londoners to appreciate the Blue Ribbon Network. Where structures
are needed they should minimise their navigational, hydrological
and biodiversity impacts."
3. BRITISH WATERWAYS
ADVICE ABOUT
SETTING BACK
FROM THE
CANAL
3.1 01130/D/P10 Westway House Unit 6, Transport
Avenue, Brentford TW8 9HF.
Erection of three storey extension to existing
storage warehouse. (see Appendix 1)
The excessive height of the proposed extension
is considered to be wholly inappropriate, given the close proximity
of the canal edge.
The siting of a three-storey extension, which
is so close to the edge of the canal creates a detrimental impact
on the canal side and canal ecosystem.
3.2. Isleworth And Brentford Area Committee—16
December 2004
Westway House, Unit 6, Transport Avenue, Brentford.
(Osterley and Spring Grove)
5.1 The amended proposal comprises a three
storey extension. The main changes being that the proposal has
been reduced in height and pulled away from the boundary of the
site.
5.2 The building is extended on its northeastern
side of the existing building and wraps around the existing building.
This will fill in the majority of what is currently an external
storage area that fronts the canal. The northwest side elevation
will measure 9.2 metres and the southeast side elevation will
measure 13.0 metres. The proposal will be approximately 3.0 metres
from the boundary of the site with the Canal Towpath and the length
of the elevation facing the towpath is 49.2 metres. The proposal
has a height of 10.20 metres, providing three floors and a gross
floor area of 1,814 square metre. The proposal will result in
two new employees.
4. COMMERCE ROAD
4.1 British Waterways clearly had a conflict
of interest. This was in terms of its advice on the suitability
of the Commerce Way application. However, it chose not to make
a point of noting that in its response to the Hounslow Planning
Department.
4.1.1 British Waterways advice made no comment
about relationship of this massive development to the towpath
(by contrast with the Westway application (above). There is no
provision for soft landscaping for most of the length, as the
huge buildings come so close to the towpath.
Sustainable Development Committee 7 November
2005
P/2004/2600 and /2596 P/2005/0230 and /0264 00297/R/P1
and /CA1
Address: Land and Buildings at Commerce Road,
Brentford
6.5.25 British Waterways Board
In their letter dated 7 October 2004,
make a general observation about the role of British Waterways
and that appropriate redevelopment of land is welcomed provided
it:
— improves the character of the
waterscape;
— increases the general public's
appreciation of the waterways; and
— Enhances the environmental attributes
of the waterways.
They then confirm that British Waterways
do not wish to make any representations.
However, they would wish to see informatives
added to any permission regarding any discharge of surface water;
works in, on, under, above or adjacent to the waterway; and the
towpath. In their letter dated 23 February 2005, state that British
Waterways has previously raised no objection and elaborate in
respect of freight and design:
"Freight.. I can confirm that BW has
carried out an assessment of freight potential in the Brentford
area, including the application site. The former freight dock
area at Brentford was operated by BW up until the 1970s, but has
not seen commercial activity for some considerable time. The local
assessment concluded that the Covered Warehouse (which forms part
of the application site) is not suitable for freight use...
Design... the waterspace allows a mix of uses
for residential and business purposes, together with the provision
of new permanent and visitor moorings. BW has set out the brief
for the new docks and has agreed their shape, character, landscape
and accessibility. BW is very confident therefore that the resulting
development will achieve a high quality waterside environment
and fully supports the proposals.".
4.1.2 At the British Waterways User Group
in Ealing Town Hall following that meeting, British Waterways
were questioned about issues that they must have had with ISIS
over the planning application for Commerce Road. They told us
that they had sorted out all the issues before the application
was submitted and that no records had been kept.
4.1.3 At an earlier point in the same meeting,
British Waterways explained how transparent they were being in
their relationship to British Waterways Marinas and how important
that was. They did not seem to understand there was any similar
need for transparency in their relationship to ISIS.
4.2 The Commerce Way application is destructive
to the navigation potential of the canal.
4.2.1 There are commercial operators who
gave evidence at the Public Planning Inquiry, who could and would
like to immediately fully use the current trans-shipment facilities.
There are no remaining alternatives. The location of the Brentford
Basin which allows access for large vessels away from the tidal
Thames, onto the canal network to Liverpool, and where the transhipment
can take place is unique.
4.2.2 British Waterways has destroyed commercial
business on the site by a policy of short and restrictive leases.
4.2.3 The proposed "finger-locks"
are a charade. They are more damaging to navigation than helpful
to it.
5. There are numerous British Waterways
sponsored applications to block navigation with non-waterway uses.
5.1 eg Soaphouse Creek. Business barges
which would prevent safe navigation from the tidal Thames to the
Grand Union Canal.
Genevieve M Hibbs
March 2007
| 
