Apologies, I thought I was posting a link to a specific post, but that hasn’t worked [does anyone know if this is possible?]The link was to one of Jim’s posts on the subject he mentioned, which at one time had pictures attached.For those interested in a range of views on what could be done with the area south of the High Street, re-visiting some of those old Threads would be worthwhile – and some of the pictures still come up.The thread which I tried to link to can be brought up using the “Search” facility, simply by looking for “Yards”. The post I thought to link to was Jim’s "Marion's idea (& Nigel's) of "Yards" to the Canal"[that looks as though it directly links! But maybe it gets lost in translation to this Board’s formatting]Another comprehensive and illustrated debate is under “Oliver on the High Street”, and to illustrate that the topic has been an enduring one, I quote my opening post -“Brentford’s High St is a complicated issue that has been seen as a problem for centuries, and the sad state we see it in today is a direct result of the well-meaning efforts of the post-war predecessors of this Council. As the architect Terry Farrell has commented ruefully, had the High St been left alone in the first place, Brentford Town Centre would now be a more successful, profitable, attractive and sought after destination than any of our neighbours.Perhaps I should clarify that I am not against redevelopment? The drab 1950’s block buildings both north and south could do with demolishing and sympathetic re-building, though how much that would encourage new and healthier businesses and shops I’m not qualified to say. Looking at how slow they have been to take up the new opportunities around the ideally located recent canalside developments, that appears uncertain.As things stand at the moment, as has been the case for years, no businesses are able to invest properly in any of the south High St shops, because their leases are restrictive in temporal terms, owing to the perceived Council need to be able to clear them out when there is something to take their place.Much the same reasoning has contributed to the steady eradication of the businesses behind the High St. They were bought out so that land parcels could be put together for redevelopment, and the smaller premises, if let at all, let on short term leases that make any long term contribution or investment impossible. The dereliction is deliberate, exactly as is the case with Commerce Road.The reason why Neil’s and Alan’s comments on disparate land ownership is pertinent lies with the Council’s desire to see the regeneration take place as a whole, not piecemeal. Because of that they had made it a legal requirement that ownership of the whole be under the one umbrella. For so long as that could never be achieved, planning consent was withheld. You are of course perfectly correct that I would have made my noises regardless of whether there were one or many developers, but that has not affected the situation.In this context it might be helpful to realise that for years there have NOT in fact been any developers concerned. “Brentford Town Centre Ltd” was a loose consortium of foreign investors looking to acquire a sufficient block of holdings, gain planning consent for a scheme, then auction it off piecemeal to “real” developers. The Council didn’t play that game, the consortium couldn’t deliver what the Council demanded, ergo collapse of that little band of speculators and resultant sales of parcels to yet more overseas investors.I believe that the necessary regeneration will stand more chance of gradual success if the Council approve an overall vision, and allow rebuilding incrementally within existing title blocks. It was in great part the wholesale obliterating nature of the “original” scheme that made such development impossible.So far as my own contribution is concerned, Alan has accurately identified that it is an attempt to have any redevelopment be a successful one that contributes positively to existing and traditional industry, retaining and restoring as much as possible of Brentford’s largely lost character, recognising that much of that owes more than a nod to the waterside with its traditional links to the High St, and that for sustainable growth of a living waterfront, supporting businesses must be encouraged to continue and to grow.”
Nigel Moore ● 3979d