Forum Topic

Would you object to the Brentford Towers being demolished & replaced with more appropriate housing?

I was fascinated and stunned to discover that the resident's association of Grenfell Tower helped the surrounding towers to smother any talk by the council to demolish the towers and replace them with something more appropriate. K&C council has a regeneration drive to demolish former estates and replace them with more appropriate housing. A simple example is the estate at the end of Portobello Road (just after Goldborne Road). The residents agreed for their estate to be demolished and replaced with more suitable housing. They have now completed the first few phases of this massive project and all previous tenants and home owners are still on the same site but in more appropriate housing.I have also noticed not many - but a few very loud and strong voices of local Brentfordians doing what they can to make sure the Brentford Towers are not demolished. IDS and Rees-Mogg both called today for these poor build tower blocks to be demolished and replaced with more appropriate housing - however everyone else was concentrating their efforts on refitting these shoddy blocks ad infinitum. What are your thoughts? How far would you go to make sure the Brentford Towers are never demolished?For your information - here is a resident of an adjacent block to Grenfell talking about how they blocked K&C regeneration attempts on the area.https://twitter.com/EL4JC/status/874936178776170496?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fvoxpoliticalonline.com%2F2017%2F06%2F14%2Fgrenfell-tower-blaze-no-accident-say-residents-highlighting-gentrification-plans-strong-language%2F

Jacob James ● 2974d30 Comments

Didn't you say in your previous post you would leave it there? Haven't you done this routine before I seem to remember?Again, thanks for the personal background but again.. I know this may hurt.. it is meaningless to the debate. As you fabricated crime distribution in the other thread and with condescension - you continued here - once again with condescension 'playing with lego' line to explain why you think the threshold of housing cannot be met on the towers site. Like with the crime thread where you stated the reaction to the acid attack in Albany Road was 'something of an OTT reaction' by forum members - you then bizarrely went on to falsely claim all areas of London experience the same crime levels.. etc and even seemed blatantly unaware that the crime in question was not gang or alcohol related but a mugging of a young man on his way home from work. You apologised at the time however.. as is common - you now feel reinvigorated. Again - all your points were disproved and perhaps if you had made your points without the condescension as you usually do - you would not be feeling as uncomfortable as you claim to feel now. However the condescending tone stuck and sticks in your posts.. and was replied to - and that is when you began the tactic of life stories, emotional chest beating - maybe in order to gain some respect? The real world doesn't work like that Adam. There are other examples of your behaviour on here - but seeing as the best we usually get out of your is a belated apology for what you consider a harmless 'joke' coupled with misinformation - I don't think we can really make much headway. I am not good at dealing with people who act in a condescending way to others while clearly not being in possession of the full facts. I am afraid we are very different and when I state I am leaving a conversation - I actually will as I am not saying it simply for more attention. I will now actually let sleeping dogs lie and not continue where you have taken this debate and concentrate on answering others who stay on topic without the misguided condescension. In your own words.. feel free to have the final comment for peace of mind. brentford has enough problems without someone going OTT in front of a lcd screen somewhere.

Jacob James ● 2974d

"Disinformation", defined as "false information spread deliberately to deceive."It isn't "disinformation" to state that there's been change in planning policies and guidance - you yourself acknowledge that fact.It isn't "disinformation" to state that you can't just simplify the number of units you might accommodate on a site based on the site area.  Again based on your previous post you acknowledge that too.I never said you couldn't replace with towers with housing of the same number, just like on your favourite crime thread I never said that "all areas experience similar crime levels".Hence it is best incorrect, and at worse a complete lie to suggest that I am spreading "disinformation".You also state how others on here have "conflicts" with me, I've not aware of any such conflicts with anyone, I'm aware of debates and contrasting views with other posters, but that's the whole point of these forums.  And although I don't post for those reasons your claims become a mockery when I point out that many local residents, local Councillors and Resident/Community Groups over the years have contacted me off-forum for informal planning advice, or formally instructed me to undertake planning work on their behalf, and many posters who contact me off-forum say how they appreciate my posts and often say how they rarely use the forums now because of the many idiots who post (just to be clear your name has never been mentioned).I know nothing about you, I know nothing about what other posters think of you and just because someone disagreed with you or made an off the cuff comment I wouldn't jump to any conclusion about you.Based on your posts (because they are the only things I have to go on) I think you take umbrage with being challenged, or when you perceive you are being challenged.  Which in turn makes debate and discussion impossible.  And there is nothing more condescending and patronising than lines like "I still respect your right to spread disinformation", "there is a definite problem on these boards with your behaviour", "thanks for all the background and emotion", or "it can get confusing if you are not in possession of all the facts".But you are right in that I do wish my posts did some have effect, I wish you'd actually go back, read the precise wording of every post, and then be gracious enough to admit that I haven't spread any disinformation and apologise for saying everything.  Just to show the same humility and respect I suggested when I decided to stop contributing on the crime thread.  I am actually embarrassed to be conversing with you about this, because generally speaking I think it's pathetic when people have petty squabbles on these forums, as it deters other people from contributing to debates.  But in my eyes you crossed the line earlier, and again now by falsely accusing me of spreading "disinformation".But no matter if or how you respond, I will not reply any further, because as I say I am embarrassed at what this thread has turned into.

Adam Beamish ● 2974d

Thanks for all the background and emotion but alas, it is just more of the same and I am afraid has little effect - despite clearly you wishing it have some effect. And also I would never say something like 'Adam Beamish is a damaged individual with serious issues' just because others have had conflicts with you on here - to numerous to mention. I jdge people on their own merits. If I say you are problematic member, it only because my dealings with your posts and what I have noticed from others dealing with you too. I have never met or seen anyone with your routine on here or anywhere else - but I still respect your right to spread disinformation - just that after a while as others have stated - it does grind - especially on the more serious issues.As to your points I am afraid they have no validity and that is the real crux of the matter. The points on crime were unfounded and you backed off.. after much drama and protest - like you are showing here today. Your points about how many homes can be built on the Brentford Towers site also doesn't hold water due to current planning laws and the size of the site. There have been changes to the London Plan - there always are - but none that would prohibit anywhere near the amount needed to replace all the current homes on the site. I know the London Plan inside out and how it is systematically ignored anyway by this council and every other in London - especially on the big projects. It is ignored because it is a set of guidelines - not set in stone. Also as regards to context of the blocks - light, situation, neighbour's views - that is also taken into account. If you have specific points to demonstrate exactly why the housing can't be replaced to the same number - please specify. Otherwise.. like with the crime debate..

Jacob James ● 2974d

Right, I'm not going to let this go.You keep repeating how others on here have been critical of me.  Yep, I'm sure they have, it's not a popularity contest, each to their own, give and take etc.You've repeatedly for the second time one poster's reference to me as a "wind-up merchant" in respect of a specific issue (the closure of Church Street).  What you won't know is that poster is an ex-Councillor who I've known for many years, who from time to time contacts me away from this forum about planning and other matters, and whose husband I used to work with at LB Hounslow.So I don't mind a jot when she rather in jest asks if I'm on the wind-up.  I do however mind when someone who knows nothing about the background to my 'relationship' with that poster uses one post of theirs as to try to undermine me.It's no different to someone you know coming on here and playfully saying "Jacob you're an idiot" and me saying "see, other posters are saying you're an idiot".It doesn't sit well with me and quite frankly I'm pretty angry about it, especially when you then follow it up with the line "there is a definite problem on these boards with your behaviour".  I honestly cannot put it any other than "who the **** do you think you are pass judgement ?".I honestly don't know how this thread has descended to where it now is.  You used the size of the GWQ development as a mathematical basis for putting 500 units on the site of the Brentford Towers.I pointed out the fact that there have been changes in planning policies and standards since GWQ was approved.  That wasn't intended as a criticism of you, but I was making the point that you can't necessarily compare a development that was approved several years ago with one that might be submitted for planning at some point in the future.  I'm sat in a development now that was approved back in 2001, and there's several aspects of this development which would be deemed unacceptable in planning terms now.I then said planning isn't like playing with lego.  What I meant by that is that every site is different, for example in terms of its physical constraints, its relationship with neighbouring buildings etc.  Hence it's not as simple as just saying "that site is 1 hectare is size so you can get 50 units on it, another site is 1/2 hectare so you can get 25 units on it".That's all I said.  Two perfectly accurate and valid points.Yet as you always do, you've come back with numerous very lengthy posts, dishing out that old line of "I like debate" and then accusing me of being condescending and such like, and now you've gone one step further (in response to me trying to tactfully withdraw from the discussion) and are saying that there's a problem on these boards with my behaviour and basically telling me how to post...I am genuinely staggered, I've been posting on these forums for 15 years now, and I've never come across anyone as aloof and holier than you as yourself.I'm honestly not sure how to conclude, but quite frankly I know that no matter how I do you will have to have the last word, so I'll leave it there.

Adam Beamish ● 2974d

It wasn't us not seeing eye to eye. There is nothing wrong with that and all healthy debate is encouraged. It was you downplaying violence in a specific locality in Brentford and stating clearly that all London experiences similar levels of crime. Of course then we had some posters correct you repeatedly, we saw the crime figures around Albany Road/ Ealing Road were the highest in all of Brentford etc and you began to back down finally and conceded your knowledge of the exact area was poor. As I stated there at the time, we are talking about people's safety in the face of ongoing drug dealing and violent muggings involving knives and acid - so when I saw someone else on here in another thread accuse you of being a wind-up merchant - of course.. we had to make sure we were not being flippant with people's safety on that particular thread and I pushed home the mess you had created on the thread.Here again, you are spreading a little disinformation and on top of that a little condescendingly talking about this not being lego. lol.  Again - not being overtly politically correct myself - I am happy to have a bit of banter with someone in the know. However someone who..again you.. not in the know.. getting it wrong and again.. and with confidence and your usual condescension?  It is a little strong. I wont call you a wind up merchant like the other poster did.. but it is grinding a little..I am fully aware of the London plan guidelines published last year. I have to go through them every time there is a new development as part of one of my jobs. There is easily enough room on the Brentford Towers site to create well over 600 homes and that is being conservative. Further, the London Plan is a guideline - not a rule book. The London plan is almost constantly broken by Hounslow when giving the green light to major projects. The same goes with other boroughs.

Jacob James ● 2974d