Forum Topic

Over-development versus rainwater run-off

I see another large development has been shoe-horned into a tiny piece of land on the corner of Windmill Road and the A4 – where there used to be a small car lot. The development looks totally out of place in terms of its character and size – I’m wondering what people would want to live practically within touching distance of the M4 flyover with the noise and pollution this generates. It wasn’t long ago that Windmill Road and the surrounding area was badly hit by flash floods – it would seem to me a good idea to use this parcel of land as an open area to help alleviate flooding, rather than over-developing the site which will only increase rainwater run-off and flooding. We often see accusations in this forum of those in the council who make planning decisions being in the pay of developers. I’m sure this can’t be true – surely not all of them. But one wonders what their motives are for allowing such inappropriate development – who do they think is being helped by these decisions? Not the poor people who will have to live next to a motorway fly-over, and certainly not the environment. I hope we can all send a strong message in the May elections to get rid of these people who would wantonly vandalise our communities. This is very much the thin end of the wedge – the Tesco and Gillette Corner developments dwarf this one – good to know that the council has ear-mark thousands of pounds of OUR money to fight the objections!

Graham Thorpe ● 1644d10 Comments

The site on the corner of Windmill Road and the A4 has a long planning history.Planning permission was granted in 2011 for 5 flats plus commercial uses on the ground floor. This was followed by an application for illuminated advertisement panels on the facade of the building. The advertisement application was refused by LB Hounslow but was subsequently allowed on appeal.In 2017, a revised application was submitted for 9 flats plus commercial uses on the ground floor. This application was refused by LB Hounslow, largely on the grounds of air quality and noise. The development was then allowed on appeal. This was followed by another advertisement application which was refused by LB Hounslow and then (guess what!) allowed on appeal.I agree with Graham about the adverse effect on surface water run-off but I'm afraid that the stable door is now closed. I don't believe that LB Hounslow could have done any more to make the best of this bad job. It's time for other organisations, particularly Thames Water, to stand up and be counted.On the upcoming public inquiry into the Homebase and Tesco sites, I have nothing but huge admiration for OWGRA and I wish them every success. The sheer determination and relentless hard work displayed by OWGRA is jaw-dropping. If there is a lesson in all of this, it is that our community must engage with planning issues from the very beginning of the process. Once the bulldozers and cranes are on site, it's too late to change the course of events.

Jim Storrar ● 1644d

There have been several developments some of which are council backed that have interfered with infrastructure like flood and surplus water dispersion and containment vessels being removed on sites which were former bomb sites but were utilised for long term problems.One such existed in Brook Road South. the remedial alternatives that had to be used made the cost to the taxpayer eye waveringly high and it real terms the cost of building a few homes completely unviable. It is true that whilst Thames Water are imposing meters that watch your every incoming use, they do not monitor your every outgoing waste.  Even though many developments locally have led to drainage issues and residents having to flush more often to keep waste drains from backing up and blocking as well as sewers overflowing.  It's not global warming. it's overdensification and too much demand on a generally victorian  system that cannot cope with sheer volume.Thames Water, rather like the Fire Service have too little and far too weak input into planning processes and like most ordinary residents find out the true implications when it is all too late.  Much of this is back door deals which circumvent as many parties as possible.All of Thames Water's current information points to severe limitations to supply and disposal, pressure reductions and excessive demand in areas with zero space for infrastructure and certainly not at reasonable or practicable cost.Yet they have no say in the reasons for creating so much excessive demand

Raymond Havelock ● 1644d

Ah..the plot once part of the Performance Car Empire.. Mr Goldsmith and all that.You didn't expect a Community Flower Garden there did you? That Abba song ringing in my ears!

Jim Lawes ● 1642d

I didn’t expect a flower garden, but it would have been a welcome addition. We’ve all seen in the last two years the importance to our health of accessible green space in our communities, but Hounslow seem determined to concrete over every square foot of space. They would have us believe that they have environmental concerns, but construction is responsible for 11% of carbon emissions in this country. Instead of taking practical steps to reduce carbon emissions, such as providing charging points for electric cars, or reinstating crossing patrols to encourage walking to school, the council’s policies are contributing to global warming. Dumping concrete blocks in our roads has had no positive effect on driving habits, and has only blighted our communities with these ugly monstrosities. This authority’s dishonesty is only matched by its arrogance that they will get away with it.

Graham Thorpe ● 1639d

self-correction - I see some reports that construction actually accounts for 38% of CO2 emissions!

Graham Thorpe ● 1639d

Retrofit First is the AJ's Campaign.https://retrofit.architectsjournal.co.uk/Councils and developers need to rethink what they are doing.

Philippa Bond ● 1639d

Good luck with that when the developers know the profit margins are much fatter with new builds.

Simon Hayes ● 1639d

38 per cent is nearer the mark. Equally, wood burning stoves account for a far higher percentage of particulate pollution, according to DEFRA, than all road vehicles. Yet private far drivers are pilloried. It makes no sense.

N V Brooks ● 1639d

Car not far. Damn fat fingers😉

N V Brooks ● 1639d

VAT still hasn't been changed to encourage retrofitting.https://www.countrylife.co.uk/interiors/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-rules-on-log-burners-wood-burning-stoves-and-open-fires-236496The rules have changed on these and on the fuel that can be sold for burning in fires.  It must be dried wood. Don't burn green wood.  There are wood burners and wood burners.My sister lived for five months after being diagnosed with lung cancer and her boyfriend blamed the wood burner and took it out.  I wouldn't have one as main heating.

Philippa Bond ● 1639d