Forum Topic

Watermans v Social Housing

Am I right in thinking both the Watermans and Max Factor site freehold was/is owned by LBH? If so should not the priority and responsibility of LBH be to use these assets to fund much needed social (not affordable) housing, rather than using these sites as a funding programme for an arts centre who currently struggle to survive unless subsidised by LBH, and with no transparent business plan as to why they are optimistic in believing their best chance of survival is to move?

Martin Case ● 2847d31 Comments

Yes, we used to enjoy the jazz but the last jazz that we booked for at Watermans didn't happen.  If it had we would have started to renew our acquaintance with Watermans but sadly it didn't so we didn't...

Philippa Bond ● 2813d

Of course we can't have the unwashed living nearby can we?what a truly ignorant post.So while you live in your penthouse apartment and enjoy your views over the Thames and Kew, who is cleaning your streets, manning the security desk in your block of apartments, posting your mail, teaching in local schools, serving in shops etc etc etc. Do you really expect the people that do these jobs to live so far away as not to cause you offence and travel miles to work?The areas you mention have only become desirable due to redevelopment - why should the very people that made the area what it is, now be excluded.

Martin Webb ● 2815d

What do you and your wife go to an Art's Centre for?  Do you frequent the one at the Paul Robeson Theatre at the Trinity Centre in Hounslow?  If not, why not - there is parking at the Centre I believe and masses of buses.  P.S. The quality of the Indian type lunches at Waterman's are greatly improved, tasty and very inexpensive - quite  acceptable either before or after a visit to the inexpensive cinema there.

Jennifer Selig ● 2841d

I think you will find that section 106 is part of the 1990 Planning act and Waterman dates from agreements made with North Thames gas - Then state owned in 1973 -1978.

Raymond Havelock ● 2841d

Fair do's but I still think there is far too much emphasis on restaurant and not enough on arts/community centre. I used to prefer when it was a cafe style food outlet that concentrated more on lunch/day times and made way for events during some evenings.My wife and I ate there, admittedly a few years ago and the food was swimming in ghee and quite unpleasant and disappointing. Maybe it has changed hands and is better, but I don't go to and arts centre to have my main evening meal.

Keith Iddon ● 2841d

Every time i have visited Watermans the restaurant is really busy.  It often appears that families with children are using the restaurant without necessarily using other facilities that Watermans have to offer.  It has a good reputation and is excellent value so why not!

Emma Renton ● 2841d

I'm surprised that you don't see people using the restaurant, Keith. My friends and I often eat there before or after seeing a film and it gets busy. The Sunday buffets seem particularly popular.

Susan Kelly ● 2842d

The freehold is owned by LBH with what is now a relatively short term lease to Watermans; the neighbouring Max Factor site freehold is also owned by LBH with a longer term lease bought privately recently by London Green; London Green also own the Police Station site outright.Not convinced the site was ever gifted to anyone, LBH owns the freehold and I can think of no reason anybody would just give a freehold to the council.  The Watermans itself was, as far as I know, built as part of a s106 agreement by the max factor developers when they were looking to build offices on the other half of the site.  A s106 is not a gift, it's more like a trade between a developer and the Council to help compensate when a development is otherwise not acceptable in normal planning terms.

Theo Dennison ● 2842d

It is, LBH are committed to increasing the number of council owned and social housing units and the same model, where we reinvest the return on investments back into council owned or social homes is now the norm where for example Council owned sites are being developed e.g. Most recently Nantley house.Block D will be built out as LBH owned social housing in it entirety - it is part of the agreement with Ballymore. There is no easy way to compare the two as the ownership profiles and agreements involved are very different - The Block D model is what you might expect when a developer brings forward a large development involving some council assets, the Watermans model where the Council's stake is a more substantial proportion of the whole.  Block D is just a fraction of the overall 'south of the high street' development.

Theo Dennison ● 2842d

That sounds like an innovative way of providing much needed ‘social’ housing, Theo.  How does that compare to Block D, south of the High Street. Is that Block ‘affordable’ or ‘social’ housing?

Barry Jacques ● 2845d

The 'affordable' element is dealt with through the planning process.  The Council has asked for an option to buy any or all of the units on the Police Station site as one of its terms for putting its freehold interest into the development and topping its equity share up to 50% with a cash equivalent.  That would make the Council effectively a silent partner in the scheme and we would then use the Council's share of return (and our original stake) to purchase the units.  I think I was rather clearer on this at the public meeting last January but hopefully you get the point.  Because values and returns are unknown at this point, it isn't possible to specify how many units it would involve or the proportion.  It's not written into the planning application, though it ought to be mentioned - it is one of the reasons why this development is different from others where the Council's only involvement is as a planning authority.

Theo Dennison ● 2846d

I would be sad to lose this facility.Anyway,hasn't it been agreed that it would not close but move, so this thread is academic, surely? Unless you know different, Mark?

Keith Iddon ● 2846d

I think the question we're all asking is Watermans a facility that's fits for purpose and right for the community it's supposed to serve - and more importantly at what cost?

Martin Case ● 2846d

Mark I think it is partly due to the diversity, or lack thereof,of entertainment. The way it appears to me is that it is a restaurant and bar that has an arts centre wrapped around it.I go there for entertainment, not food and the area that is now used as a restaurant, about 70% of floor space.I rarely see more than 5 or 6 people eating there and quite often none at all.That area used to be used for bands, jazz on a Sunday, disco's now and again and the odd quiz night.There is  cinema and a theatre, but they were always there.

Keith Iddon ● 2846d

Watermans provide an excellent service to the local community. Have you ever been there during the school holidays?  Lots put on for the local children, dance classes, fun days, theater and so on. I am a long term 'friend' of Watermans and there are a lot of people from the local Brentford community that use the venue.  If more from Brentford are not using it, then you need to ask the question, why not?  It is not for the diversity of entertainment they provide as it is for a wide audience.  It is not their pricing as there are discounted tickets available making their services accessible.  Can you explain what it is?

Mark Skuse ● 2846d

Perhaps if Waterman's decided to offer more activities that appealed to people, like the gigs, discos and quiz nights during the week like wot they used to before the restaurant took over all the available space, they might get more locals. But is is a very important facility, Brentford has little enough as it is as regards leisure facilities.

Keith Iddon ● 2846d

Theo on the current application it only indicates 'affordable' housing - can you please clarify what proportion of the Half Acre site will be given over 'social' housing?

Martin Case ● 2846d

Theo,Can you clarify the ownership of the Watermans site.  Is it owned by the council, or was it gifted to the people of Brentford and therefore not something the council can trade or sell?The legal status of the site is fundamental to LBH's property development deal making.

Lorne Gifford ● 2846d

Yes a mix of social and leisure amenities are vital to community cohesion, but currently Watermans is used primarily from other communities outside of Brentford yet still has to be subsidised by the local community. Brentford is in need of regeneration, however are we advocating the gentrification of yet another pocket of London and forsaking a greater social mix which produces a more diverse and inclusive community? The current Watermans site is a prime site and as such demands a high premium, but all this is doing is pushing land values up and up which in turn means developers have to maximise their return hence the poor provision of social housing within proposed developments in Brentford. So back to my original question are Watermans providing a vital service and one which should be prioritised over greater needs?

Martin Case ● 2846d

The proposal was to link the Police Station, Watermans and Max Factor sites; reprovide the arts centre on the Police Station site, build private housing for sale on the riverside, and locate the 'affordable housing' element from the totality of the sites on the Police Station site.  The Council also committed to reinvest the value of its original equity stake and its share of the proceeds from the scheme into purchasing units (as 'social housing') on the Police Station site.  So yes, that commitment to invest in social housing was and I think remains written into the scheme.  The Council committed years ago to retaining Watermans in Brentford, so creating a new arts centre has to be part of any proposal involving these sites.

Theo Dennison ● 2847d

Unlikely, but it is something I suggested at the last exhibition.

Barry Jacques ● 2847d

but the question is will they?

Philippa Bond ● 2847d

Yep, I agree with Keith.But the Brentford FC scheme says it all.  Over 900 new flays, no on-site affordable or off-site financial contribution, all 'justified' on the basis that the development was centred around a community asset, i.e. the new stadium and some token educational floorspace within the stadium.And then of course they came back with modifications for the scheme which reduced the capacity of the stadium by 2,500, and removed the educational floorspace altogether.So if there was any 'community' benefit to begin with (which lets face it there wasn't, as Joe Public couldn't turn up and kick a ball around the pitch and the educational floorspace was minimal) there certainly isn't going to be any such 'community' benefit now.I was acting for one of the objectors and I can't think of another modern football stadium which has come forward giving so little to the community.  Yes as I often point out Community Infrastructure Levy is payable on the whole development, and that's a significant sum, but infrastructure already lags long behind demand and that imbalance will only ever be rectified if the powers that be stop focusing upon trying to meet that demand and instead focus upon trying to reduce that demand by controlling population growth etc.

Adam Beamish ● 2847d

I would suggest that it is vital that there is a mix of social and leisure amenities in order for a community to thrive, whatever the demographics. So, yes social housing has it's place,but so does the social cohesion more likely to be achieved by having a diversity of facilities for people to use,like cinemas, swimming pools, libraries,  youth clubs etc. alongside pubs, restaurants and cafes.

Keith Iddon ● 2847d

sorry but how does social housing give back to the community? Take a area where there is dense social housing, and see what the area is like. Just look at the estate behind Ealing Rd and Kew Bridge....from what I can see not much is given back to the community. Those Riverside flats are prime land, and should be sold at the highest bidder, with funds to used in other areas, like welfare etc....

Raki Smith ● 2847d

Dormitory towns give very little back to the community and their residents tend to be transitory/short term.

Martin Case ● 2847d

I don't mean to be controversial and maybe I'm missing the point but is there a strong correlation between social housing provision and 'community' ?.

Adam Beamish ● 2847d

But sadly Barry with little or no social housing in Brentford it's in danger of becoming a dormitory town which eventually will destroy our community.

Martin Case ● 2847d

I agree, Martin, but if they do own the Waterman’s site, they will be able to sell it at a higher price and reinvest the proceeds on more social housing elsewhere.

Barry Jacques ● 2847d

In these austere times and with local authorities supposedly strapped for cash it would seem prudent for them to use what assets they have to address a London wide problem. Particularly when much of the development being proposed has little or none social housing.

Martin Case ● 2847d

I think the police station site would be better for social housing since it could accommodate more units. That, together with Block D (south of the High Street) would give a much needed net increase in social housing after County Parade goes.

Barry Jacques ● 2847d