Forum Topic

“As you say, it's your choice to drive a car, but equally I think in turn that means you've got to accept the congestion that comes with that.  “And I do. But having accepted that I strongly believe that authorities must make every reasonable effort to reduce congestion rather than to increase it – by closing streets (e.g. Church Street) introducing useless full-time 20mph zones, unnecessary cycle lanes, increase parking fees for diesel cars (my car is not diesel, by the way).“the best thing about working for myself from home is not losing over 2-3 hours a day of my life to commuting”Adam, I did not expect this argument from you. Not everyone can work from home. And for many it is not possible to work within easy reach by public transport, cycling or walking.Online shopping for groceries… Sorry but many would prefer to see the groceries they are buying before actually buying them. You can also get some good deals when you actually go the shop yourself.“If we chose to live in one of world's biggest cities, then all the negatives that comes with overpopulation and the associated need for development are generated by our own choice to live here.”Agreed. As long as Authorities don’t try to intentionally make lives of those living in the “one of world's biggest cities” miserable – see item of my post.“If we choose to have 4 kids, then we shouldn't complain about health services being overstretched, because we're part of the problem, but we do.”Again I agree. But the reasonable number of kids should be promoted via education and cultural integration rather than by intentional reduction of the number of GPs, surgeries, schools etc.

Alex Shpinkov ● 2863d

That's exactly my point Alex, we can't have our cake and each it and then point the finger of blame elsewhere, it's pure selfishness and we're all guilty of it.As you say, it's your choice to drive a car, but equally I think in turn that means you've got to accept the congestion that comes with that.  And as someone who has spent many years commuting both by car and by public transport, the best thing about working for myself from home is not losing over 2-3 hours a day of my life to commuting (indeed that was a small part of my decision to become self-employed).You mention the weekly shop - I hate the frequent noise from endless supermarket delivery lorries from 6am to 10pm, but I use them myself every couple of weeks as it makes no financial or time sense to go shopping myself - booking a couple of days before means a delivery only costs a couple of quid at most (not that much more than my own fuel costs) and there's regularly vouchers I use to save money by getting groceries delivered (e.g. last week I paid £53 for £60 to be delivered to my door - why would I spent £7 more and lose an hour out of my day going to the supermarket ?).So much as I might swear under my breath when there's a clatter from a delivery driver stacking containers near my front door at 10pm, I'm in no position to complain.If we chose to live in one of world's biggest cities, then all the negatives that comes with overpopulation and the associated need for development are generated by our own choice to live here.If we choose to have 4 kids, then we shouldn't complain about health services being overstretched, because we're part of the problem, but we do.

Adam Beamish ● 2864d

But (and I'm aware we're moving away from the specific application) it's too easy to blame the powers that be, we have to take a long hard look at ourselves.The human race is driven by selfishess.  We want to drive everywhere because it saves afew minutes of our precious time.  Yet we moan about traffic jams.  Most humans want their little family unit, some want their big family unit, yet moan about the lack of infrastructure to support it.Overcrowding and overdevelopment is a result of us, the human race, not politicians or administrators.  If we stopped breeding so recklessly, stopped relying so much on the private car and took greater pride and care in our environments, then we wouldn't be where we are.But it's so much easier to point the finger of blame elsewhere and carry on with our "I'm all right Jack" attitudes.For the 2nd time in 2 weeks I found myself on a 267 at rush hour yesterday going down Twickenham Road.  Was it a slower journey than afew years back ? - undoubtedly.  Was it that much slower ? - no.  The stretch from Busch Corner to the South Street junction took say 5 minutes (and I think I'm being generous) than in the past.  Now I'm not particularly pro the closure of Church Street, but in recent years my attitude about it has mellowed, and when I see so many cars at rush hour with only the driver in them, it only highlights to me just how selfish people are.  Yep, of course some people need their cars all the time, but they're in the minority (I imagine at least 50% of the drivers on Twickenham Road could use other forms of transport if they were so minded), and the only way we're going to force people out of their cars and onto alternatives is by making travel by car as uncomfortable as possible.  I'm not anti-car, but for the last 4 months I've been without a car.  Yes, I do miss the convenience of it, but I can count on one hand the number of times I've genuinely needed a car during that time, and when I do, I've used Zipcar etc.  And financially it makes no sense whatsoever for me to have a car.I may be a planning consultant but I'm a local resident and a human being too.  I present schemes that accord with all development plan policies and therefore get planning permission, but I don't always think "wow, I wish I could live in this development"  I scoff at what the government says, I laugh at the whole notion of sustainable development that supposedly underpins the planning system.But, that's a problem we, the human race, have created.  For which I, you and all of us are to blame.  So we're in no position to moralise.The day a government starts taxing the hell out of large families will be the first day any government is taking a positive step to reduce the problems we have created.

Adam Beamish ● 2864d

Adam might be correct from a protocol point of view but it is most certainly not from a pragmatic or moral point of view.It reflects more on what we have become as a society and have allowed our politicians and administrators to become. Quite who they are really working for is probably as unclear to them as it is to us.The wholesale failure to deal with the overcrowding and overdevelopment of London and home counties and the disparity that makes living in the rest of the UK seen as second rate is down to poor governance at all levelsPoliticians fear it as the potential of racial overtones could be implied but developers relish the weaknesses and are seizing it. They see the £££££s that Supply and demand create and how malleable and vulnerable some authorities and politicians and career minded authority executives are and have gripped like a boa constrictor.It's a blame game and a gravy train all rolled into one.The losers are us the ordinary inhabitants, irrespective of background. Poor quality new homes, bad design, over priced, inadequate accommodation, The wrong kind of homes, no infrastructure, clutching at straws and almost insane efforts to curb the consequences of overcrowding in a small place and yet they want to heap more coal on the fire.The social repercussions are brewing nicely. It won't be long before chicken coop , marketing led existence bring things to breaking point.Until a government of any persuasion has the gumption to grip the whole issue from top to bottom be tough and pragmatic and put the priorities of quality of life first and profit second then we are heading for a Blade Runneresegue utopia.No space, no life, just existence and spoon fed from a smartfone.It won't happen while politicians lick their lips about the possibility of all those flocking to London voting for them - Capitalising on ignorance, uncertainty and division.

Raymond Havelock ● 2864d

As I often advise objectors, let's not just carried away on matters that aren't relevant to the determination of the planning application, because to do so only undermines the credibility of otherwise valid objections.Whether the Council has the right to do as it pleases with the land isn't anything to do with the planning application and can't be taken into consideration - I could apply to the Council to build a 30 storey residential tower in your rear garden and the Council couldn't refuse it on the basis that it's not my land to develop.It's also extremely unlikely that the Council are legally prevented from developing the site, and I'm sure due diligence would have been undertaken in that regard long before we got to this point.So all this talk about "gifted to the people of Brentford and not yours to sell" is nothing more than hot air, which deflects attention from potential genuine planning-related shortcomings of the scheme.In terms of the principle of relocating Watermans to a previously developed site within the town centre, that fully accords with all relevant local, regional and national planning policies and guidance.And whilst I may be the only one to admit it, if I was running a Council faced with never ending cuts to funding , ever increasing bureaucracy and increasing demands due to ever increasing population, if I wanted to maintain any kind of respectable service delivery I'd be maximising the value of sites like Watermans by seeking to develop them as intensively as possible.I don't like the redevelopment of the Watermans site anymore than anyone else, but I am a realist and I recognise the position Councils are in.Not saying for a minute that residents shouldn't object, far from it, but if any objections are going to be effective then focus on the shortcomings of the scheme, it's over-dominant frontage etc., not ranting about matters that simply aren't relevant because to do so effectively consigns your objections to the bin.Also, in light of the objections from statutory heritage consultees, I would be amazed if the Council ignores those objections and grants itself planning permission - this isn't remotely comparable to a situation like Trimmer Hall where the heritage consultees said nothing.

Adam Beamish ● 2865d

Agree Vanessa - we can but hope they do listen and most importantly act to prevent these historic views vanishing for ever beneath concrete.I would also point out, low level development at the Waterman's riverside site doesn't have to mean developing the W.Art's Centre there.  That riverside site could be turned into a smashing restaurant/bar/cafe with the lovely gardens and trees a bonus.  The management of Waterman's does not wish to remain there anyhow, they want an all whistles and bells state of the art large cinema, a theatre etc etc    However, a new Waterman's supposed Art Centre actually moving to the Police Station residential site is unlikely to happen. I for one hope it withers on the vine for lack of interest and lack (some £6 million shortfall) of funds.  Hounslow already has a centrally position Art's Centre at the Paul Robeson Theatre in the Trinity Centre, Hounslow - surely that's much better positiond in the centre of the Hounslow Borough to attract LBH fans than Brentford.  WHY ON EARTH DO THEY NEED A 2ND?  Hounslow residents can't don't want to support one Arts Centre quite apart from a 2nd not yet built, further to the east.  Most of the support for the current riverside Waterman's is from the cinema patrons and residents of Ealing, Chiswick, Kew, Richmond, Kingston who enjoy the films but also the admittedly limited, botched views of the river, a drink or coffee, an inexpensive Indian lunch and parking and especially the 65 bus. The current patrons aren't going to bother once the cinema moves to a dreary concrete basement with no parking, no 65 bus and NO GUARANTEE that it will ever be built at all.  So Hounslow, get real, the Waterman's riverside was gifted to the people of Brentford, it is not yours to sell.  Yes develop it but retain these beautiful views both to and from the Kew World Heritage Site.  Do not vandalise these precious assets, they're irreplaceable, once lost, gone forever.

Jennifer Selig ● 2865d