Forum Topic

The Brentford Plan enters next stage of consultation

I have just laid my hands on a copy of The Brentford Plan update and questionnaire.  I must say I am unusually impressed and encouraged by what I see.To access the questionnaire see: http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/home/a-z_services/b/brentfordplan.htmDeadline is 25th July 2005 for responses.The Brentford Sustainability appraisal is particularly interesting:http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/sustainability_appraisal_assess_of_options_-_brentford.docOn the questionnaire I would strongly encourage anyone that like me believes in the need to urgently press ahead with truely sustainable building in the Brentford ticks options 2, 3 and 4 on question 24 'Encouraging sustainable living'.If you take a look at photos (see http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/brentfordlibdems/album?.dir=1a8c&) from my recent trips to visit the Findhorn Ecovillage in Scotland (see http://www.ecovillagefindhorn.com/) and BedZED development in Sutton, South London (see http://www.bioregional.com/programme_projects/ecohous_prog/bedzed/bedzed_hpg.htm) and like what you see, you might also want to suggest in Question 24/ Option 5 that the Council actively encourage developers into the area building to ZEDstandards (see http://www.zedstandards.com/).Brentford Recycling Action Group (BRAG) hopes to organise a trip to BedZED in the Autumn (unfortunately this would be during the working day).  Please let me know by email if you would like to be included on information about this visit.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 7256d33 Comments

The local schools may not be high achieving in national terms but very few urban non-selective schools are. You described our schools as poor - we have Isleworth and Syon, Green School, Gumley House, Gunnersbury and Brentford Girls. Which of these did you have in mind?As for West Mid - my point was that at the end of the day most people would feel that having a well equipped hospital on their door step - even one that may not be of the highest standard by national league tables - was a good thing.Obviously it depends where you move to as to the level of crime you experience. Personally I think we live in a relatively safe area and I believe the stats that say crime is falling because talking to people I hear less about this subject than I did a few years ago.As with crime, property prices can be more expensive outside London but generally they are not. The people that I know who have moved have always said that space was an issue as their family expanded and they couldn't afford a bigger place in this part of London.The building of all these flats is not due to demand - most of the newer developments are empty and they are increasingly difficult to sell. The reason they are built is that you can get a much higher plot ratio for higher rise flat developments than you can for low density family housing schemes. How many family houses have been built in Brentford over the last five years? Off the top of my head I can't think of any.Brentford isn't alone in this - it is a London wide issue. Lots of families would like to live here but it is becoming increasingly difficult.

Dan Evans ● 7215d

Dan,if you doubt what I say about the West Mid.,see the tw8 home page reports under 'MRSA'and 'Hounslow PCT'

Keith Iddon ● 7215d

Well, schools wise I didn't see any high achieving schools in Hounslow on the national school achievements lists published in the national press a few months ago.'Generally speaking we have some very good schools'is a bit vague,to say the least...I am aware of the West Mid. Hosp. having a poor reputation as (it has had for years)and it is deserved as it was recognised as a poorly performing hospital, relatively speaking, in the last report on hospitals,again published in the national press.Crime is rising,particularly violent crime, all over London.It's not that it is higher in Hounslow than other parts of London, but it is higher than in most,if not all, the other parts of the south east.    Building high density flats is a supply and demand response...more single people or buy to let customers.    Housing outside London is sometimes more expensive or the price of it rising faster,also as a supply and demand response...more families moving out of London.

Keith Iddon ● 7215d

I'd be interested to know which of our local schools you consider poor. My experience has been that generally speaking we have some very good schools. I was unaware that our crime rate was particularly high compared to other parts of London. Do you have any evidence to back that up?As for hospitals - I'm not aware of the West Mid having a particularly bad reputation. Most people with families would consider proximity to be a crucial factor.Traffic - there is no denying that this is a negative although are we particularly badly affected compared to elsewhere?Demographically you are right that families are moving out of London but the main reason for that is the cost of housing. This is surely inevitably if across London and in Brentford in particular nearly all the new housing stock is unsuitable for families. There is a massive demand for family housing in London but no supply because it is more profitable to build high density flat accomodation.

Dan Evans ● 7216d

I once suggested something along these lines - only half in jest - for those tenants who insist on having fifteen cars parked outside their home and everybody else's.The thought of them all squaring up to each other over who is going to park their surplus vehicles where in the limited space available is an amusing one, and the realisation may not be long in coming that maybe the neighbours who had complained about them in the past had had a point after all.

Phil Andrews ● 7217d

Children are affected by their parents most of all, whether through positive re-inforcement of anti-social values or through idle lack of care in seeing they are brought up with care for others. The surrounding environment won’t make that much difference, - the home, if it exists in any meaningful way, is the primary environment.It would certainly help if people “were to complain en-masse”, but my experience is that very few do. It is far too difficult, unpleasant and even dangerous to be the first and possibly the only complainant. Those groups who have been goaded into complaints “en-masse” over years of suffering, which is necessary to obtain ASBO’s and the like, must only be the tip of the iceberg.So I’m still tickled with the poetic justice of the concept. It only addresses the anti-social amongst those on some form of welfare assistance of course, and we shouldn’t forget that often the most privileged can be the worst offenders.Actually, however contradictory it may sound, I’m against all “engineering” of social situations, but in the present climate of necessarily leaving control in the hands of authorities, we can do little else legally but offer the best suggestions we can.I’m a bit sorry now I filled in the questionnaire so promptly! Just think how much one could fit in under “other”.The hard copy questionnaire offers far more scope for individual and accurate presentation of views, on-line was convenient, but severely restricted the choices.

Nigel Moore ● 7217d

I think it may be a bit hard on children in particular(maybe some are in care I suppose).The scheme is for repeat offenders I think,so broadly speaking I suppose they are getting what they have brought upon themselves.It does smack of ghettoisation,but what else do authorities do?It would probably help if people under the cosh of anti-social neighbours were to complain en masse to get any meaningful change here.It would probably be a vote winner,how many anti-social people bother to vote?

Keith Iddon ● 7217d

What's "strong" about it Keith? I love the idea! How could people realistically complain at being neighbours with their own kind, sharing the same moral values?

Nigel Moore ● 7217d

Perhaps,as the eviction process is often a very slow one, councils etc. could introduce a clause after the effect that anti-social behaviour from tenants is met by a temporary increase in rent to help pay for the extra services (repairs/graffiti removal/estate wardens/extra police)that often have to be put in place as a result of that behaviour.It may help people own their behaviour and hitting them in the pocket is often the only way.      I'm not sure whether public housing is a right or a privilege,but in my opinion often council and public housing tenants do get a better repairs and general service(clearing of rubbish,replacement of landing lights,repairs to lifts etc.)than is offered by most private landlords,at about 60%of the cost.Surely, this is a result and should not be taken for granted.

Keith Iddon ● 7217d

Read in The Times recently that in Holland bad neighbours and anti-social families who live in public housing are now all put together on designated estates,the idea being presumably that they all drive each other mad instead of the vast majority of public housing tenants who are civilised, community minded people who have a right to live their lives in peace.Seems a bit strong, but it's obviously a response to an on going,deep rooted social problem.If these offenders altered their behaviour and policed themselves a bit more,then they could be given the same thought and consideration that the rest of us deserve.

Keith Iddon ● 7217d

I have to say I'm with Steve on the social housing debate, possibly influenced by the fact that I live in such a property myself.  However Nigel's comments re high density social housing versus low density "luxury" housing are spot on.  Those who are most in need of social housing are usually families, often from minority groups whose family units are sometimes larger.Most people who live in social housing (as often provided by housing associations as by local authorities these days) are the same essentially decent people as you will find anywhere else.  It is undeniable however that there is an anti-social element and it is this element, numerically small though it may be, which tends by its nature to leave a more lasting impression on the rest of us.The other thing to note about people who require social housing is that they often get the rough end of the stick.  There is a belief amongst a few that such people should be grateful for whatever they are "given", which tends to ignore the fact that they actually pay rent.A recent development in the Richmond borough met all the government guidelines for total parking provision, taking into account the desirability of discouraging excessive car use, but almost all of it was allocated to the private homes and the remainder were left with next to nothing.  When the social housing tenants were forced to park their cars in neighbouring residential streets this was held up as evidence of their selfish and anti-social nature.My wife and I are currently involved in legal proceedings against Notting Hill Housing Trust due to the grossly inadequate sound insulation which exists in ours and neighbouring flats, which were constructed as recently as 1992.  After years of prevaracation and lies from the landlord we had to commission our own acoustic survey at a cost of over £1100, which has established that the sound insulation in the properties is indeed below legal requirements and therefore unlawful.  But how many people in social housing - often on low incomes or no incomes - could be expected to do this?Civic pride is most often to be found where human beings are provided with housing and an environment which is capable of engendering it.

Phil Andrews ● 7217d

"Jim's comments may sound harsh,but it is nonetheless observable fact that those with a stake in their homes have greater incentive to look after them and the surroundings"There is absolutely no doubt about this.  A couple of our best friends live on Brentford Dock.  They have approximate figure for the rented flats there, they say it is now over 50%.If you are ever going down to the little pub there, look at what's happened over the last 5 - 10 years (whenever the buy-to-let) boom started.I think Marion said that she lived on Brentfrod Dock. This is not linked to the fact that we all thought that she was joking or a "holier than thou speach".  I'm as bad as anyone else - I sometimes need to use hire cars, I'm sorry to admit that I don't take as much care about slipping the clutch etc on those cars as I do when I drive my own car.

David Johnson ● 7218d

South of the High Street has always been commercial employment area, the more housing of any sort, the more endangerment of that.Hounslow UDP's aim is for 50% "affordable", what the mix of affordable should be is one of the questions asked, whether 50/50 "social" (council flats?)and "key worker" (realistically buyable by local workers),75/25 Social to Key worker, or the other way around.Jim's comments may sound harsh,but it is nonetheless observable fact that those with a stake in their homes have greater incentive to look after them and the surroundings, and that high density "social" housing, with attendant lack of amenity space leads to understandable youth problems and disinterest in the neighbourhood.High densities should be reserved for the luxury end and social housing given far more room and amenity space. The opposite occurs, naturally enough for reasons of economy.

Nigel Moore ● 7218d

" It's for this reason that I'm against the provision of lots of so called "Social Housing" which in my book is a precursor for decline...when all manner of people could move in..spoiling Brentford's opportunity to excell. "That seems rarther harsh, social housing just means key worker and shared ownership these days.  If done correctly this will produce a good mixed population in the new areas.Much worse in my opinion is the large number of speculators these developments attract, producing massive amounts of rented accommodation and a high priced bedsit land culture where no-one really becomes a resident of the area.Modern developments seem to be about 50% low cost, I think we should aim for 75% south of the high street, to offset what has been done in the other developments and bring true new brentford residents in.

Steve Peake ● 7218d

Keith I tend to agree with you!  Whilst many long established locals are moving out of London....its the Incomers from abroad..leaving behind their "places of strife"...who seem very happy to move into the Borough..friendly and welcoming as it must appear to them.Its important that Brentford ..south of the High Street... when its developed..doesn't become a seedy no-go area, occupied by criminals and anti-social behavior types...causing havoc and dismay to old and new Brentfordians.  It's for this reason that I'm against the provision of lots of so called "Social Housing" which in my book is a precursor for decline...when all manner of people could move in..spoiling Brentford's opportunity to excell. Low key entertainment facilities would be more acceptable that turning the area into a dodgy zone..like I understand that parts of Ealing Broadway are becoming.So: If you haven't already..why don't you fill in the form on-line..and feel fulfilled ;0)

Jim Lawes ● 7218d

Why would families want to move to the borough of Hounslow?Poor schools,hospitals,high crime rate,loads of traffic..people with kids are moving out of London for better quality of life.

Keith Iddon ● 7218d

You’re absolutely right Dan, the population makes the town, services spring up to meet the needs, (providing the Council encourage this). The largest apartments in the big developments are for the rich only, even the smallest apartments are starting at £255,000! How many locals can buy these? Where do families find a home near the town centre?As the Brentford Community Council keep pointing out, increasing the population, no matter what the make up, is absurd without the infrastructure to support and service it. And that doesn’t mean shops, it means medical care, schools, playgrounds, police, post, sewerage and drainage, public transport and the rest. Without the intermingled industries and employment areas, as well as housing for their employees, how is a local population to be self-sustaining? As you’ve noted, we are on the way to becoming a dormitory town, with the deadness that characterises them.As for High Street shopping, I’ve just done a count.Along the north side of the High Street, we have 2 furniture/interiors shops, 2 drycleaners, 2 coffee bars, 2 newsagents/grocers, an optometrist, chemist, estate agent, Tandoori restaurant, tanning salon, Barclays bank, Cheap shop, Italian restaurant, hairdressers, gift shop, fibreglass shop, Arts supplies, solicitors, tile centre and the Community Development Centre. One ex-white goods store seems available.Along the south side, we have electrical goods, Natwest, Post office/newsagent/grocers/off-licence, mobile phones, off-licence, 2 bookmakers, bedding, internet café, Caribbean restaurant, bakers, pizza, fish & chips/Indian take-away, call centre, another estate agent, the Disability Network centre, another 2 cafes, print centre, computer surgery, another tanning salon, the Magpie & Crown and a motorists centre. The ex-florist’s is up for grabs and 4 small shop frontages have been closed up for years.As for the brand new St George complex, the High St frontage is occupied to date only by a Costcutters supermarket, with a corner shop (?) being opened. 9 blank storefronts remain. Within the potentially “buzzy” and smart square, 18 shopfront windows remain boarded up, no takers over the last year or so.At the moment, the tatty old premises are proving more popular than the smart new ones. Building more will bring Brentford into the premier league missed by Marion?

Nigel Moore ● 7219d

The basic theme I plan to adopt in my response to the consultation is that at this stage the development of Brentford looks unbalanced in the residential sector and this has implications for everything else. One two bedroom flats are great for profit maximising but not necessarily for building communities. We need more families in the area and the development should reflect that.If you are a 20 something young professional living in a flat with a Thames view you might ask why so? My view is that because places like Ealing and Chiswick have more diverse cross section they end up with the 'buzzy' atmosphere people want even those of a pre-family generation.The reason for this is that if a town becomes a dormitory town - like Brentford is in danger of becoming then there is little activity during the day. The margin that bars restaurants and cafes make is much less and therefore good quality ones are reluctant to move in.It is probably too late to change things because we are already committed to a huge amount of high density developments. My fear is that even if we could pick the shops and facilities we wanted in the town centre they wouldn't survive because of not enough people would frequent them.

Dan Evans ● 7219d

Why the down-town move to 2nd division Brentford then? This question of the High Street lacking “buzzy up market ambience” appears to be a general concern, with a Town Centre re-development promising to achieve this.Quite how? Creating new shopping precincts is not the same as creating new shops. The High Street is lined with retail premises, the complaint seems to be that they don’t address the town’s needs. Without those needs identified, and control over who takes up the tenancies of the premises exercised to meet those needs, it will make no difference whether the premises are the existing ones or new.We already have new premises lying mostly vacant in the St George buildings near the bridge, with only a supermarket open and some new corner shop being done up. If all those were taken up, perhaps there’d be more of what’s wanted, but no-one can force retailers in, despite that having all the hallmarks of a potentially “buzzy” atmosphere. There are still vacant older shops, and more central ones keep chopping and changing proprietors. The Council as landlords could presumably dictate who they wish to occupy such shops, providing only that appropriate offers were made.The major changes promised by the Town Centre proposal are yet another supermarket in the middle, perched over car-parking, yet another restaurant, and a cinema to add to the Waterman’s Art Centre one.Will this provide the jazz you’re looking for?

Nigel Moore ● 7219d

I distinctly remember a previous consultation exercise ref. the proposed town centre and our Council decided that we did not need any further development because there were too many complaints about building works. So now we have over 1000 flats, a few houses, three hotels and the worst shopping in the whole of West London. When I asked my optician and local Italian restaurant in Brentford if they had benefitted from the new comers, both replied a resounding 'No'. Because the shops are so poor residents shop elsewhere and eat where they have nice shops and a buzzy up market ambiance ie Chiswick and Ealing. I moved to Brentford from Chelsea 8 years ago so it was quite a culture shock to be relegated from the Premier division to the second in one fell swoop. Lets get this town centre re-built and stop stalling with yet more consultations. I'm fed up driving everywhere and adding to the congestion in West London.

Marion Watkinson ● 7219d

...and as you have said - it is full of loopholes!....  ;-(

Sarah Felstead ● 7222d

Well that’s how it should be, but that’s not how it’s working. No matter how good the planning process, it’s administered by the human and fallible. “Gold rushes” affect too many, and somehow reach even the supposedly immune caretakers we’ve elected. The “gold” may be monetary, social or political prestige, or anything else. It’s always been the case throughout history.No power however, exists in a vacuum, whether it arises through “democratic” forces or commercial or military power. Under whatever system, if we don’t say what we want, we can’t complain that we haven’t been listened to. We’ve been given the opportunity to say what we want through this “consultation”, so however cynical we may be as to it’s effectiveness, we should take it. Afterwards, we then can say, if necessary, that we haven’t been listened to. We can’t say that if we haven’t spoken.If enough people shout loudly enough, those “up there” will be well advised to listen and take seriously their “caretaker” responsibilities. In a “democratic” society as with others, power to ignore the masses arises from the sloth of those masses, and the conviction that we can’t make a difference. If you haven’t raised your voice to express your wishes, don’t raise your voice to complain of not being heard.The planning process can't be relied on for protection Sarah, it's just one of the avenues we have to pursue.

Nigel Moore ● 7222d

..so we are looking for the planning process to support the local Community; to be a 'caretaker' of the land for the next generation, and not to let developers walk over the land in the 'gold rush' for monetary gain?

Sarah Felstead ● 7222d

So it should have been Sarah, the lower half is flood plain and used to have a boathouse at the centre of the river's edge, which was supposed to be re-instated. No other buildings not thus intended for such river use are permitted in these areas according to the London Plan's waterways policies.

Nigel Moore ● 7222d

..and wouldn't it be nice if the scheme on Kew bridge was an open plan gardens per-raps terraced down towards the river - the river being the focal point?

Sarah Felstead ● 7223d

I have to agree with your comments on the format. There was at least one section in the on-line form where multiple ticks were supposed to be possible, but only one could be chosen. I got around this by ticking “other”, and then elaborating on the points. I daresay follow-up letters could be sent that ought to be taken into account?I’m in more than one mind over compulsory purchase procedures, my company lost its freehold through this over 50 years ago at considerable loss and for no community gain regarding half of it. Then again, for the council to have control of the land puts it in no stronger position to build what they want, unless they could finance the building themselves. As it is, the undertaking has still to be taken up by those with the means to do so, which is where we are anyway.The vice-chair of Transport for London is an enthusiast for something called Land Value Tax, which supposedly would help to prevent land lying fallow while awaiting constructive use.

Nigel Moore ● 7223d

I have completed the Survey but was very unhappy with the format and instructions. In many cases, the choices were not exclusive - I want to pick several, and prioritise them, but there were no guidelines whether this was possible and I did not want to void the form.Re the sad state of the High Street (and Kew Bridge Corner for example), I too depair that the Council doesnt have serious enforcment powers to take over when notable and community interest land is neglected. They should be able to compulsary purchase and push through a scheme

Nic Doczi ● 7223d

My other posting shows that Nick’s concerns are shared by the Council. What they can do about it I haven’t the faintest, but cannot see a problem with any other large developer putting in a scheme that would address community concerns and still turn a profit. I have a feeling that the degree of profit margin has something to do with it. Why develop for the community for a small profit when greater profits are to be had providing luxury housing?Then again I don’t know how these things work. The strongest commercial freeholders south of the High St have their own ideas for development and could possibly join forces with an alternative. Would the Council look on anything like that with favour?So far as the presently approved outline is concerned, it lies with British Waterways to pull their finger out and come up with a revised scheme for the waterfront that accords with local concerns and their own planning guidance. For all my criticisms of BW, they have produced an excellent document in this respect. The problem is much the same as with the Mayor and the GLA, - having terrific policies that they ignore in the interests of greater returns, greater densities and greater prestige.As for us, despite Phil’s pessimism over the consultation process, we can hardly grumble if we don’t at least make our views heard by filling in the questionnaire with as much extra comment as it needs to clarify what we want. Absence of comment is always taken as support for whatever the Council/developers want!

Nigel Moore ● 7223d

Some very fair points from Nigel......but why do we have (and pay vast sums of money for) a council/government that lets a situation DRAG ON FOR AT LEAST 2 YEARS ??"BW and BTC Ltd have failed to produce an improved waterfront strategy for nearly two years since being asked for it. How can that be the fault of the Council?"If we don't have the laws and financial penalties to deal with these situations we should.

Nick Jenkins ● 7248d

The sad state of affairs is entirely down to the speculators wishing to cash in on any proposed re-development. That goes for large landholders like British Waterways as well as for the collection of individuals owning large patches south of the High Street.In Commerce Road, BW have kept all businesses on short-term licences precisely in order to destroy the commercial viability of this prime employment area. The businesses south of the High St were bought out, and those sites not let on short term leases were allowed to become derelict.Without these traditional employment areas fulfilling their role of providing local jobs for local people, impossible under such circumstances, of course they will decay.Rushing through plans to wipe them out with bulldozers, to start afresh with no clear idea of what should take its place is counter productive. At least the Council are seeking local input, and however long-winded the process, that much is welcome. No detailed proposal has been put forward for South of the High Street, and the Council were rightly concerned over the failure of the BW led waterfront strategy to address issues such as retention of those industries such as my own that rely on being on the canalside. These after all, were the building of Brentford in the first place, and with the rising government interest in re-vitalising the waterways, added to the continuing rise in pleasure boating use of the canals, are becoming more, not less essential.BW and BTC Ltd have failed to produce an improved waterfront strategy for nearly two years since being asked for it. How can that be the fault of the Council? The would-be developers are the ones dragging their feet.I too was impressed with the consultation questionnaire, particularly with the accompanying notes.“there are still some businesses in the area which rely on convenient access to the waterways. These need to be supported if they are to continue in the future.”Even if my interest could be called purely selfish, I would urge as many as possible to fill in and return the questionnaires, demonstrating that locals wish to see Brentford’s development be inclusive of local employment and waterside industry. The alternative will result in a dormitory centre serving communities beyond Brentford, which will have lost all individuality along with its historical character.

Nigel Moore ● 7253d

David Johnson ● 7253d

I agree it has taken far too long to start work on the South Side. My worry is that all but a few of the historic buidings will be saved. I hope that beore  the plans are finally approved a full heritage assessment of the whole site takes place.

Neil Chippendale ● 7253d

All very interesting, but the redevelopment of Brentford and the "dump" of a high street, seems all rumour and talk for years and years.....is there any actual timescale for  this??....will anyone actual get on and take a decision and do something positive??I had a good walk around the other weekend, and it really is quite a sad state of affairs......just give me a couple of bulldozers, 20 million, and a year of Brentfords' time.....!!

Nick Jenkins ● 7253d