Forum Topic

Brentford to be dealt another blow

It looks as though The St Paul's and Griffin Park area of Brentford is about to be served another blow with another huge and ghastly development to effectively encapsulate what remains of Old Brentford.A monster development which will loom over St Pauls Church and plunge the Park into shadow along with a shopping centre and no parking is to be foisted onto the area, bringing up to 1500 people into the area along with another huge development for the Watermans/MaxFactor area. It's going to be hi rise buildings which will be visible from almost all of Brentford and as far as South Ealing.So yet again Cllr Curran  along with his puppet masters Walsh and Cronies have pulled off another "Done Deal' in secret.

Raymond Havelock ● 3404d10 Comments

Very measured Adam and to be honest I cannot disagree with your final surmising. It's pretty much what I think as well.However the done deals in secrecy, do not happen in every borough or administration and this one has had too many poor results as has Ealing under the same faces.And that's not good for anyone living here.

Raymond Havelock ● 3404d

I'd suggest having a look at volume 2 of the adopted local plan which sets out the sites specifically allocated for development within the Borough, the majority (if not all) of which have been allocated for development for many years.http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/environment_and_planning/planning/planningpolicy/local_plan.htmRaymond, going back to your post, I'm not a bureaucrat, I have the advantage of wearing three hats, one as a local resident, one as a former planning officer within various Councils, and one as a consultant working on behalf of both developer and objectors (be they individuals or groups).When I decide whether or not to act for an objector I have to work out what value my contributions can add.  If an objector came to me saying "this site should never have been allocated for potential back in 1974" I'd say "well it was, and since then independent inspectors acting on behalf of the SoS have confirmed that allocation, so forget about that as a potential basis for an objection, let's look at the actual scheme being proposed, let's compare that to the site allocation brief and then we'll be clear as to what basis we might be able to put together a credible objection".If my potential client choses to disregard my advice and persists with an objection based on something that happened 40 years ago,  then needless to say I'd turn down the request to assist because professionally I wouldn't want to be associated with an objection that "had no legs" and I'd know I couldn't have a good working relationship with that client.Many people in the local area have come to me asking if I am willing to assist them in objecting to a proposals, and even if I don't feel I could add value to their objection I'm always more than happy to point out any weaknesses/issues as I see them.  But yes I do despair (simply because I don't like people who care about matters undermining their own cases and effectively wasting time and effort by going off on an irrelevant tangent) when I see local groups or individuals basing an objection on something has absolutely no relevance in planning terms.But hey, it's up to them - a minority of posters on the CW4 site seem to have this notion of me as some kind of completely pro-development individual who's completely blind to the impact of such developments, conveniently forgetting the fact I live here and have to face the crowded trains, the congestion, the 10 days to get a doctor's appointment etc., on a daily basis.As I've said before, to me the planning system isn't the problem, it's the bigger issue of focusing growth and development in the capital and, more fundamentally, the effect of uncontrolled population growth.

Adam Beamish ● 3404d

Just to recap because I start losing track on the development plans for Brentford1) South side of the High StreetGreat announcements 1 year and half ago, wrapped some derelict buildings with Ballymore advertisement and so far they just demolished some area but not building activity has started yet2) New Stadium.CPO should be start soon. Maybe in 2 years we should see some results at Lionel Road.....3) New MarinaA lot of talking but the boats are still there4) Griffin ParkWill be demolished and other new flats will be built 5) Police Station/Watermansthis is the new oneam I miss anything more?

Domenico Urzi ● 3404d

Raymond/Sarah,Just go back to my original post will you please ?.  I never used the words "silly concerns", the expression I used was "silly talk".The "silly talk" being the insinuations about Walsh, Curran and co. are clubbing together to ensure development of a site which has actually been allocated for mixed use redevelopment for years.  And I also said how such "silly talk" undermines the credibility of genuine concerns.You both coined the phrase "silly concerns", not me.

Adam Beamish ● 3404d

Can you provide a link establishing your statements, so we can all be as well informed as you? It would help us to respond.

Paul Brownlee ● 3404d

It's due to be lodged next week.It involves 400 plus flats on the Police Station and Morrisons sites, a 24/7 mini shopping mall a second exclusive marina  and undisclosed luxury apartments at Watermans/Max Factor.The Morrisons/Police station site will be huge  and dwarfs the existing Police Station complex. All with virtually no parking.As for the comments Adam makes, that's true but also displays pure myopic bureauocratic nonsense. The sort of excuses and rationale that have been used to hide behind.The fact that any common sense reaction to what almost always turns out to be borne out when these things become reality is dismissed as " Silly Concerns" shows how warped the system is and how blinkered those working within it have become.I wonder what you would be saying if LBH had dismissed the clanking Manhole cover as a "Silly Concern"  It may well be trivial to most but if it has an effect then it is not so silly.It might be silly but then sense and sensibility seems to be dismissed by the arrogance of embedded and collective establishments. It was well known that the designation of the sites was an error back in the 1970's.The opportunity to correct it and put it right was ignored by the current administration and planners.  All the observations and comments made locally by residents were clearly completely ignored and not even acknowledged.The original conservation area was supposed to include the County Court, Protect the Roman ruins ( which no doubt you will also know is why only low level building with shallow foundations was permitted) and cover part of the south side to the River.Why did this not happen?

Raymond Havelock ● 3404d

I imagine that some of Ray's concerns about a big development are attached to all the other huge developments swamping the area around Brentford which makes the Morrisons one which should be reviewed from fresh if there were any sensible reasoning.  Not a silly concern at all.

Sarah Felstead ● 3404d

That would be the he Morrisons site which has been allocated in successive adopted planning documents, e.g. going back to the January 2009 Brentford Area Action Plan, for mixed-use redevelopment ? - you can't point the finger at any current Officers or Councillors for something that has existed in adopted planning documents (including those examined independently by the Secretary of State) for years ?.I understand your basic point, but as I always say don't harm the credibility of genuine concerns by any 'silly talk'.

Adam Beamish ● 3404d

Presumably that will be on what is now the Morrison's site or does it include the old police station as well?

Anne England ● 3404d

Do you have any more details, for instance a planning application ref?

Paul Corcoran ● 3404d