Forum Topic

Brentford Steering Group Video on Front Page.....

Please take a look, its a response to the Ballymore redevelopment proposals......

Iain Muir ● 3909d35 Comments

When they were constructing the Ivy bridge tower blocks the internal stairways collapsed and work stopped for some time. Surely this was a sign that this type of development should have been scraped for a more normal housing estate?

Paul Allen ● 3900d

A sad day for Brentford

Steve Taylor ● 3900d

Thanks Guy.  I wasn't looking for special insights or inside information, just some kind of indication from current policy positions of which you might be aware as a party member - but no matter.I admire your faith.  Nonetheless without us being given any tangible reason to believe that the next Labour government will do things that the last one didn't that is unfortunately all it is.

Phil Andrews ● 3901d

I used to think that about the Labour party too.

Keith Iddon ● 3902d

I have no special insights as to what the next (I hope) Labour government will do, and I wouldn't go out of my way to defend the record of the last one on housing. They clearly didn't do enough.The next government of whatever colour will have plenty of difficulties because (despite the spin we get daily) this one has made a terrible mess of the economy: the deficit was supposed to be down below £40Bn by now but in fact is not only £100Bn but rising.I was mainly talking about councillors in my previous post because I do have some insight into how they see the world, but the national Labour party, flawed as you may think it is, is still on the side of ordinary working people (and the polls say they have a huge majority amongst those in work). It will therefore do its best to resolve the problems that ordinary working people face, because it is with them that their instincts lie and from them that they get votes (and funding - no Russian oligarchs are paying £150K to play tennis with Labour).I agree with most of what Paul Brownlee says, though when I first set foot here Brentford had a vibrant manufacturing economy with Firestone, Trico, Gillette, Beecham etc as well as Wilson and Kyle and whatever else was going on in Ballymore land. It also had the culture that went along with that, some of which remains and gives Brentford a bit of a different character to most of W London. I regret the passing of all that but its water under the bridge and, with globalisation, it's not coming back anytime soon.So the options are to continue with a derelict waterfront and half the High St hoping for something to turn up, or to take the best offer available and do your best to improve it. I have no doubt at all they have done the right thing.

Guy Lambert ● 3902d

Green Dragon Lane was "the future" once, now it is the present and we are stuck with it for the foreseeable.There's an old adage that says those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.Maybe some of those councillors who voted for this ugly development will do a Brad Fisher in a few years' time - move out of the area, then post on this forum from their new abode to scoff at those they left behind to suffer the consequences of their actions?

Phil Andrews ● 3902d

We've heard that for years Paul but the brutalism you highlight will be repeated on the high street, only with a more modern facade. In 10 years it will look and feel just as bad and out dated.10 years is hardly 'the future', it's just a blip.

Keith Iddon ● 3902d

I think The Who said it best...many of us 'Won't get fooled again' into thinking that there's much difference between the minted and aloof 'toffs' and the minted and patronising 'socialists' when it comes to real priorities. Big business and big money rules ok?

Keith Iddon ● 3902d

I've lived in Brentford for 20 years and have never been enamoured of the place. I admit it has a significant history, and a degree of quaintness, but it was neglected and forgotten. Only in recent years with the development of the riverside has so much opinion been galvanised. There's lots of hot air here, but the reality is that the place was stewing in it's own cesspit - the High Street is a disgrace, and no encouragement to improve it has been forthcoming. What I want to know is can I see a doctor when I want one? Do I get value from my council tax? Does the loss of a police station and sub-post offices affect me detrimentally? Are my roads and infrastructure fit for purpose? Are some of the closed pubs a blessing? (The current closure of the Albany Arms is definitely a blessing for local residents). Is the public transport up to scratch? Is my rubbish collected regularly, are the schools able to function, is the A & E of my hospital going to survive? Are things better or worse since I moved here in 1994? The answer is a resounding "Yes". I regret the loss of the local baker, butcher, fishmonger et al, and I'm not an advocate of the new Brentford Market with it's artisan produce serving a certain elite metro clientèle - but the bottom line is that Brentford is a damn sight better than it ever was, and anyone who thinks different are wallowing in nostalgia - clouded and forgetting just how bad Brentford was. So bring on the new, keep the worthy old - but for God's sake move on and let this town breath and embrace the future with optimism. Whatever they do can not be as bad as the monstrous tower blocks of Green Dragon Lane. That was brutal planning and development. So bring it on I say. Change and architecture is subjective. What matters is quality of life. If that is enhanced then where's the beef?

Paul Brownlee ● 3902d

What Keith said Guy.  The simple fact is that we can blame the present government for having the wrong priorities, and goodness knows it has, but it was preceded by a Labour government and may be followed by another one.  The previous one certainly did nothing of any significance to reverse those priorities.  Maybe you are telling us that the next one will but, if that is the case, any inside information as to how, why and in what way there has been a policy shift would be very helpful.

Phil Andrews ● 3902d

Yes it's a great shame and very possibly an indication of their real priorities that during 13 years in power New Labour did next to nothing to increase affordable housing stock.

Keith Iddon ● 3902d

Raymond, you make some very valid points there, as does Adam.I think most people would agree that they are at least uncomfortable with the preponderance of small flats in current developments, but what drives that has little to do with politics and everything to do with money. Given that there is a shortage of land, and landowners' desire to make the maximum profit out of their holdings, they're going to build to the highest density they can get away with and I'm pretty sure the economics favours flats (and high buildings). This also affects the perceived (and maybe real, I don't know the facts) shortage of light industrial etc space round here: I've certainly heard that landowners are hanging on to industrial land in the hope that it will get rezoned as residential - I believe residential land is worth a lot more.As to the politics - somebody described it as 'the art of the possible'. Anybody who doubts that Labour councillors would prefer genuinely affordable housing, including family houses, to overpriced flats isn't paying attention. I think - well, actually, I know - they are in fact extremely frustrated that they can't make more of this happen. But the truth of the matter is that that whole 'Ballymore' area has been more or less derelict for at least a decade and I suspect a lot longer and this is a huge blight on the town. So there is a priority to get something done and it becomes a debate about what's the best outcome that can actually be achieved. We can regret the flaws in the Ballymore scheme till the cows come home but at least it's SOMETHING and at least there is SOME social housing coming where none was there previously.Personally I would prefer the council to buy the site themselves and use public investment to build a development which reflects public priorities but the only way that was going to happen would be if we elected an entirely different government with an entirely different approach to local government than the one we have today.

Guy Lambert ● 3902d

It's difficult Adam to see what else one could do. I would love to be more actively involved, but my working hours would never permit me to be a reliable attendee.But I feel I did my bit right from the start, ages ago now.Frankly, I don't know how some councillors, Love 'em or Hate 'em ever find the time to attend the meetings and functions as well as plough through the minutae of documents. It is noticeable that many of  those who do manage this don't have proper jobs or seem to work in the public sector. Certainly my employer would not tolerate the amount of time taken off or the short hours that one Cllr. I know  takes.I wonder too how enthusiastic you wold be if you had to object or involve yourself if you did not have the job and skills you have? Especially out of hours in your own time.I think I've done all I can, I attended meetings, exhibitions and filled in the forms and made my criticisms known. Wrote letters and yes, let off steam a bit on this forum. I've done all that I could as an individual, like many other individuals I expect.As a person who has architectural , structural construction and design skills in with a more creative stance, dealing with the red tape and endless posturing over regulations and various departments interpretation of such is not for me.But seeing what works and what doesn't and what is right or wrong does not require these skills.I was never entirely happy with the steering groups ideas but found very early on that it was also a bit of a closed club except when they need our support.That was also apparent amongst others at some of the meetings.But the overwhelming scenario which seems to really blight this town and sadly quite a few others is the dominance of politics and if you are not part of that scene then you are ..well for want of a better word, a pleb  ( probably it's correct Greek use)Plenty of people have good ideas, plenty can see the shortcomings and are not afraid to say so.But just because they are not 'experts' in the eyes of professionals does not mean that their ideas and inputs are invalid or inferior.

Raymond Havelock ● 3902d

Indeed, it isn't a bad idea, but personally I have to question whether sometimes local groups do know the best way to get involved in such issues.  I haven't looked at the whole background in any detail, but taken at face value the efforts of the Steering Group seemed to be focused upon promoting an alternative, as opposed to focusing upon the merits (or lack of them) of what was on the table, and had more been done at an earlier stage to promote a Neighbourhood Plan then perhaps the outcome would have been different.Don't get me wrong, on a personal level I feel there are many problems development wise, although the planning system itself can only go so far to address such problems.  Personally speaking I see too many developments which are apartment-led as opposed to being house-led, and the notion of many properties being genuinely affordable to Joe Public isn't one I believe.  I also regularly hear stories from major housebuilders how they have people jetting in from Asia and China on the day they start selling properties and they'll buy 10-20 apartments to rent out at an absurdly high rental to the poor sods who can't afford to buy their own place, like you or I would buy a pint of milk.But generally speaking none of the above is a reasonable justification to refuse a planning application, it's more about the bigger overall picture.

Adam Beamish ● 3903d

You're right and no criticism felt.I am just merely pointing out that if there happened to be a suitably qualified or experienced person who was also a member of our community they may be able to act as a member of the  neighbourhood group to help focus on what should be done.Local action groups and such bodies are made up of members of the community and if some of the members of that community know what the main issues are and the best way to tackle them then I can't see how that is a bad idea.Anyway, it would appear that sadly it's all over bar the shouting.

Keith Iddon ● 3903d

Keith, not meant as a criticism, but I don't think you understand the neighbourhood plan concept (quite understandably if you've hadn't researched it) and it is neither designed nor intended to be professional led, but driven by the public/commumity themselves.Hence why I suggest the principle of such a route being explored by residents in association with local action groups, and to be fair to me, the fact I've mooted such a possibility is intended to be helpful in suggesting a productive step as opposed to all the useless negativity I keep reading.

Adam Beamish ● 3903d

I wouldn't know where to start when it comes to helping to design development projects nor do I know the perimeters of what is expected to be presented and probably more important in terms of being taken seriously, I have no cash to put on the table to back up what I think. I think that your reasons for someone more used to such projects and who is more qualified to get involved not to be part of the process and at to at least advise and steer in the right direction pale into insignificance when the outcomes are considered. To suggest that everyone else except such a person should get involved in collectively developing a vision is a little counter-productive (for want of a better way of putting it) imo.

Keith Iddon ● 3903d

I hear what you say Keith but if residents have got time to attend committees, post on this forum etc., then they've got the time/interest to work with other local organisations, like Brentford Community Council, the Steering Group etc. to work together to create a neighbourhood plan.  That was the whole point of bringing such measures in, so that communities would work together and everyone would been involved, e.g. through a local referendum.However in my experience I tend to find that the 'norm' is for people to be reactive rather than proactive, much easier to criticise from a distance than to actually get involved in any kind of 'hands on' capacity.The issue with professionals, including myself, getting involved is that (1) we are often professionally conflicted, (2) even if we are not then some individuals will always suspect that we are.

Adam Beamish ● 3903d

All well and good Adam but people also have to balance work, families and whatever else and are not necessarily qualified,confident or experienced enough to 'create a neighbourhood development plan'. Perhaps if those in the community who have or have had a role in town planning, architecture or property development etc. would step forward and offer to lead such an initiative it may work.

Keith Iddon ● 3903d

The problem is that what anger there is channeled/directed in a completely unhelpful way/manner.  It's all very easy to sit back and point the finger, criticise Officers, Councillors and developers, especially when such critics have little understanding of the system and the constraints to the decision making process.What actually takes some effort and might actually generate a more positive future is if the moaners actually got involved in the process, for example for bringing the community together to create a neighbourhood development plan which would carry material weight in determining future planning applications ?.

Adam Beamish ● 3903d

I think I have to agree with Anthony and others.  But Anthony, the Mr Angry hat might have to be shared!I'm also angry because one could see this happening and there was now't us townsfolk could do about it. Regardless of all the spin it was as usual a bit of a stitch up with councillors voting who clearly had no interest in this bit of the borough and a bunch of spivs who clearly know how to exploit their apathy,  ignorance. B*********t baffles brains.  The only sensible and incisive questions came from the audience and boy! did that put the wobbles on the spin.Too much pussyfooting about by the steering groups and too much emphasis on moving Watermans which is a daft idea.Very let down by our ducking out councillors and yet again a truly weird approval recommendation by the planning dept. Only one with the guts to make a stand and not one to second him. Spineless and myopic.Just when are Hounslow going to get rid of the regeneration director.Family homes lost. Affordable ones at that. Lots of proper jobs lost and to be lost only to be replaced by Baristas and waitresses.Hardly going to look good on his CV.A very sad day for this town and a massive opportunity squandered for all the wrong reasons.

Raymond Havelock ● 3904d

And there's the irony, Keith.  Because although these apartments are designed and marketed for these mythical 'yuppy' singles and couples, they will be crammed full of families who cannot afford anything bigger. The GWQ development on the A4/Ealing Road is already proof of this. Look at all the balconies of the two-bedroomed apartments.  They are full of toys!  Families need houses, but what family can afford to pay £600k+ for a 3-bedroomed house in Brentford nowadays? The Ballymore development will simply feed this problem.  And none of our politicians is willing to stand up and say 'Enough!'

Mary A O'Hanlon ● 3904d

Brentford's future is as a dormitory town for singles and buy to let landlords. Overall that's what this development says to me.

Keith Iddon ● 3904d

Anthony - I agree with everything you have said here about the brutalesque, over-dense, soulless nature of the Ballymore proposal, which our council has now approved. No one is denying that the High Street needs to be regenerated.  But the Ballymore development is just an excuse to shove 900 'luxury apartments' into an already congested area, with little thought for revitalising Brentford as a commercial hub or providing quality, affordable family housing for the community. (Where, for example, are the residents of County Parade going to live when the bulldozers move in?) On the eve of the Planning Committee meeting, I wrote to our local councillors and members of the committee to express my reservations about the plans. In my letter I quoted the philanthropist George Cadbury - "But if each man could have his own house, a large garden to cultivate and healthy surroundings - then, I thought, there will be for them a better opportunity of a happy family life." It seems ironic that his descendant, a Brentford councillor and prospective Labour MP, was turning on the Christmas Lights in Chiswick on the same night that the Planning Committee was putting corporate profit ahead of the needs of the area she is supposed to represent.

Mary A O'Hanlon ● 3904d

I have only been a resident in Brentford for 3 years in December and I just watched the video and totally agree with what is being said, I do not like the plans. I live in Holland Gardens next door to the Music Museum and a complex has been built next door on the old Thames Water Works and it is far too close for my liking!!! I love the location here where I live so close to the river that was more the reason why I moved here from Nottinghill, very close to Portobello Road Market area. Yes some of the derelict building in Brentford look awful and I would like to see something done with them but I personally would not like to see lots of complexes and high rises built. I would have gone along to the meeting but I have only just seen the video now and I believe the meeting was yesterday (Thursday) but hopefully can be involved in some way and will keep my eye on here.

Anna Santos ● 3905d

I had posted a lengthy reply to this last night but it seems to have been deleted this morning. Not sure why as it contained no insults or bad language.So I'll try and reply again.I accept that I come across as Mr Angry. I am. Not in the flying fists variety but in the frustration of what is systematically happening to this town and the endless missed opportunities and half baked schemes that have failed in so many ways.I would sooner be Mr Angry than Mr Insipid, Mr Apathetic, Mr Bland or Mr Indifferent.I have by the way done my bit. I have filed my objection as have most of my family.  Angry because the news that it is a 'done deal' has been floating around for quite some time.Whilst I do not like several aspects of the Steering groups suggestions, even they at the end of the day have been largely ignored.It's hard to be anything other than angry at that. It just underlines the lack of respect and input by those who are supposed to represent and serve the local populus who seem to believe they are a cut above the public.But what is on the cards is truly awful. Outdated, brutalesque, over dense and will be as souless as several other developments.Worse still, is the loss of thousands of local solid long term skilled and semi skilled jobs. Not all of us can be TV and Media execs, Marketing execs or science bods. Small manufacturing and non office based service industries are as vital. They may not be as shiny and glitzy as Sky or GSK but a great many have solid long term jobs in these "shabby little businesses" as some like to describe them.Low cost versatile business facilities have been reduced severely in this area which even now still a has a geographical natural industrial base. Especially around the riverhead.The proposals are truly awful and will further degrade Brentford as a cohesive community town which despite the generations of neglect still remains intact far more than almost any other district in London .Yes, I have ideas, pragmatic not rose tinted pipe dreams but no-one listens. It's cliques or politicians.This is too important to allow politics or gerrymandering to influence a decision, but yet again we are going to end up with a poor profit led development.In a nutshell,  proper family homes, gardens, and small mixed use business/industrial facilities better infrastructure and open up the riverside.For all.So angry? Yes.  Sad for Brentford ? Yes.

Anthony Waller ● 3907d

My memory of the meeting was that most of the criticism of the scheme echoed the High Street Groups concerns as to height, density and the lack of Brentford's heritage in the detailed design. I did not see any doubts about the Groups vision for how the development should be. I do not think I have met Anthony but he does come across as 'Mr Angry' in his posts on this site....

Iain Muir ● 3907d

So you don't agree with the Ballymore plan or the alternative put forward by the BHRAG: what's your suggestion, Anthony, and what have you done to make it happen?

Guy Lambert ● 3907d

What was really obvious at the church hall meeting 2 years ago was that the vast majority in attendance were not at all impressed with the developers plans and far from impressed with the steering groups ideas either.The reason this is now being hurried through is because at long last the realisation that developers are not producing the kind of developments that are really needed, nor to the quality or benefit of communities is starting to be realised by  authorities, voters and even some politicians.The tide is about to turn for the better but not for the profit led agenda of developers of this ilk.

Anthony Waller ● 3908d

Yes fair points Iain (about the detailed schemes for the outline phases).  Whilst I won't personally be voting for either, I do also share your view about what's going to happen in next year's election.

Adam Beamish ● 3908d

Adam, I agree that conditions are generally unknown to the general public but given that there is plenty of scope for planning officers to direct issues such as materials and finishes the overall 'look and feel' of the development can be influenced. Also this detailed application will be followed by detailed schemes for the outline phases, which can also be influenced. I agree that Mary Mcleod is playing politics by posturing at this late stage but that is to be expected given that her tenure will end next year when the seat returns to Labour.......

Iain Muir ● 3908d

On a related point, I do find it rather absurd that Mary Macleod is moaning about the developers 'snubbing' her because they aren't willing to meet with her just at the moment.After all an application has been under consideration for ages and now Officers have produced a report for committee members to consider, and Members are expected to determine the application this week.  Ballymore aren't going to change their application this late in the day.So what would be the point in the developers meeting with the MP, or vice versa, at this particular point in time ?.  The cynic in me thinks its nothing more than an attempt to curry favour with some locals ahead of next year's elections, and the whole purpose of requesting a meeting at this point in time was because it would obviously be turned down so she could claim the developers had snubbed her/local residents.

Adam Beamish ● 3908d

Fair enough Iain, although as I say promoting an alternative vision isn't the way I'd personally (or professionally) ever advise objectors to focus their representations on.I also don't really understand how the video will "aid subsequent negotiations on conditions throughout the development process" - 95% of the time the discharge of conditions is dealt with exclusively between Officers and applicants, the public aren't consulted, the details aren't referred to committee etc., so to be honest after the decision on the planning application is made, the video is forgotten by the planning process (not I agree by the general public).

Adam Beamish ● 3908d

Sorry Adam but I disagree..... The planning report has a clear recommendation for approval, albeit with lots of conditions. I imagine the application would not be presented now unless Ballymore had full confidence in getting approval. The steering groups arguments have been well rehearsed both before the lively meeting at St Pauls Church two years ago and since. As far as I could tell on a brief scan of the report there have been few changes to meet the concerns expressed at that meeting. The video provides a clear alternate vision and a benchmark against which the agreed scheme can be judged into the future. It also summarises what the group requires and even if it does not succeed in persuading councillors to vote against it will aid subsequent negotiation on conditions throughout the development process. It looks to me as though influential planning officers and councillors are letting dreams of grand developments both here, along the golden mile and at the new stadium override lessons from the past. Yes we need inward investment but we also need to recognise local concerns, especially as to social housing and infrastructure.

Iain Muir ● 3909d

I have to say I'm not personally much of a fan of the video, as it must be remembered that Councillors making a decision have got to consider the merits of the application before them, not a potential alternative.  The video essentially tells Ballymore to go back to the drawing board, tells them to appoint a world class architect, when I'd always advise objectors to focus their representations on the scheme that is before them, rather than concentrating on alternatives. Indeed I've seen some Committee Chairs rebuke speakers for departing from the application before them.I also don't think it is a good move (for either an applicant or an objector) to show a video as part of their presentation to committee, as to me there's no substitute for direct eye-to-eye contact whilst making points to committee, a video doesn't have the same kind of impact as a good oral presentation by an individual.Speaking personally as a local resident (I feel I have to state that everytime I post now incase one particular individual from Chiswick has another go at me) I'm disappointed that a steering group (which I believe includes an ex-Councillor) has gone somewhat 'off tangent' in its objections, which may reduce the weight given to its entirely credible concerns about the actual scheme which is being considered.

Adam Beamish ● 3909d