Forum Topic

Morrisons and front page article

Reading the front page article and looking at the Committee Report, it's really important to stress that the front page article is wrong is that LBH's report doesn't claim that the proposal offers 76% commercial floorspace and 24% residential (the Local Plan designation for the site seeks 75% commercial to 25% resi ratio).The scheme provides 4163 square metres of commercial floorspace and 221 flats.If 4163 square metres represents 76% of the total floorspace, then that would mean the total floorspace of the scheme would be approxiately 5478 square metres, meaning that 1315 square metres would be residential.So 1315 square metres divided by 221 units equals 5.95 square metres per residential unit !!!.In fact, as the report clarifies, the application proposes 221 resi units (13,016 square metres) and 4,163 square metres of commercial floorspace.Hence the ratio is 76% resi and 24% commercial, i.e. skewed entirely the opposite to what the Local Plan site designation seeks.Regular posters will recall I've always said it would be impossible for any scheme to meet that designation, but it's certainly ammunition for objectors !.

Adam Beamish ● 3056d3 Comments

Adam,I will have to open my 60 year old bottle of Scotch !We've agreed for once!

Raymond Havelock ● 3056d

I see the front page article has been corrected now.You're right Raymond regarding the amount of 'technical speak' these days, as I've said before go back 40 years and you'll find applications for 50 houses and such like comprising little more than a covering letter, a form, and afew plans, and when permission was granted the Council would only impose a handful of restrictive conditions.Now with every major application there's a myriad of reports from consultants in lots of specialist areas, and as you say it makes it very difficult for the average man in the street to comment etc.To me, the fundamental fact that the retail to resi floorspace is wholly the opposite to that sought by the adopted Local Plan designation for the site is the biggest shortcoming, issues like design etc. are subjective, but when you've got a local plan designation for a site (a recently adopted designation too) any scheme should get as close as it can to satisfying that designation, which this scheme doesn't.Not that I ever expected a scheme to come forward which did satisfy that designation (to me it was never realistic to expect a town centre site to provide 75% retail to 25% resi floorspace) but the ratio proposed is the mirror opposite of that required by the designation, and that to me is a step too far.

Adam Beamish ● 3056d

It does seem incorrect as I have recently seen the Design and Access statement by Essential Living and it does bear out a ratio of more residential and less retail.Also I heard that over 3000 people signed the paper petition and that the volunteers collecting signatures stopped at that benchmark. Certainly my wife was a late signer.But I don't think the report which I've just read on this site acknowledges seriously all the issues and concerns that are the talk of the town and locally.We may not be expert in planning speak but almost everyone knows this is not a good thing for Brentford and a far from desirable way to live for potential newbies.I think it dwells too much on non statutory recommendations and policies and not on the real issues and concerns. Far too few proper family homes and too many single person and short term dwellings . Which there is already a glut of locally.But then Adam you are better placed to pick apart the report as it is more comprehendible to you than it would be to an ordinary lay person.How Councillors, who are in effect no more expert than myself or most of us can make a clear and enlightened decision based on this report is beyond me.It does not seriously address very much but more to dismiss the quite legitimate concerns and issues almost glibly.It does not seem to relate to reality and certainly not to the people of this district. I cannot see any benefit but a lot of really damaging side issue being created.As for a quality development, what is that supposed to mean? It's not made of paper cache and Bostik?But it is certainly aesthetically hideous and quite in harmony with the outgoing buildings but certainly not with what is to remain.That report to me looks like the sort of thing my Bosses have drafted to suit them when they really want something.So what can anyone do if this is a loaded and done deal?

Raymond Havelock ● 3056d