Forum Topic

At no point was the Ballymore development designed, sold or built as a purely private residential area; it has has always been an area which combines both private residential units as well as retail units which by their very nature demand public access. The whole point of the Ballymore development was to rejuvenate the neglected waterside areas of Brentford not just for the benefit of the people who purchased homes there but for the local population to. That's why there will be bars, supermarkets, cinemas, restaurants, shops etc...Neither I nor anyone else can claim where the future Ballymore resident's service charge will be spent, but since some key parts of the development will be legally accessible by the pubic with full rights of way, then it is possible that Hounslow Council may be responsible for the joint maintenance of those public areas that are open to the public - much as Augustus Close, which runs through Brentford Dock, is run and maintained by the Hounslow Council, not by members of the estate. People buying the Ballymore flats will be fully aware of the public rights of way that surround their property and will surely appreciate that the design of the development would have taken potential future visitor numbers in mind. If part of their service charge contributes towards the maintenance of those areas, then that is surely the price to pay when purchasing a flat built within an area that had designated pubic areas factored into it from the start. The public access wasn't forced upon them - it was an integral part of the overall design.Brentford Dock was built and designed as a private estate with the communal areas envisioned for the use of the residents only. At no point was it designated as public land with full rights of way - hence the signs stating as such that have been placed around the estate for decades. And at no point were we consulted by Hounslow Council about a possible reduction of our service charge or an offer of shared responsibility for the land they now see as public property - again, it is the residents ONLY who will be picking up the bill for the guaranteed increased maintenance costs.Having private land, designed for a limited amount of usage, forced by a draconian hand to become fully public (with all the negative financial implications that entails) is not the same as purchasing a flat built in a mixed public and private development and then paying a service charge in line with that development's advertised utilisation.

G Pursall ● 1174d

Of course residents here cause littering. Nowhere has it been stated or implied that before last summer the riverfront was a haven of spotless tranquility. What did change, however, was the amount of people using the riverfront. That corresponded with a rise in littering. Again, no one seems to be appreciating the reasons why the gates have been put up at this point in Brentford's history and never before.ASB is of course a key concern but what about the general upkeep of the area? At the moment some areas of the grass by the river have been cornered off because of too many dogs running around that have destroyed the grass. Now imagine hundreds of people trampling over that same area throughout the year. Imagine how many more dogs and their owners might choose to walk around here once the thousands of new flats are built. This isn't just about ASB. It's about the ability of the land to absorb a far, far greater footfall than ever before.The simple truth is that by allowing unrestricted access to the riverside to thousands of new homes will incur significant costs to a) maintain it in its present condition. b) maintain all the pathways that provide access to the riverfront. c) increase security to ensure the riverfront is being treated respectfully by all d) an increase in the amount of cleaning and tyiding up of litter which will be the inevitable consequence of greatly increased numbers of visitors.It is very easy to say that none of that matters when people don't have to pay a single penny towards those guaranteed increased maintenance costs. Yet the only people who will have to pay them are the residents living here. That strikes me as resoundingly unfair that, for the benefits of the entire new community that will be coming to Brentford in their thousands, us residents should bear the sole financial burden of maintaining a riverside space for their benefit with absolutly no cost or inconvenience being levied on themselves. It is incredibly frustrating to see this argument and situation constantly framed through a classist 'us vs them' debate. It's not. Think about the implications of the next few years when all the new homes are finally built. Think about why the gates have been put up at this point in time and not before. Think about who will bear the increased costs in an uncertain future where the financial position for many is bad and could significantly get worse. Think about the implications for the people who actually live here and pay for the upkeep of land rather than the continued benefits of these who don't.

G Pursall ● 1197d

It is not an assumption that all the residents of the newly built flats will be bad neighbours. I'm sure that 99% of them will be respectful and not cause any problems - in much the same way that 99% of the people who came down and used the riverside this summer were fine. That does not discount, however, the 1% who do litter and cause similar anti-social problems. The evidence of this was seen and felt by Brentford Dock residents this summer. And it's not just here; you only need to take a look at places like Osterley Park, where litter was flowing in abundance during the summer, to realise that some people just do not care. It becomes a case then of the more people who use a certain area, the more problems that will ensue, no matter if the vast majority are respectful and tidy.As for banning picnics and barbecues, I just don't see how that would be enforceable. At the moment BBQs and picnics are allowed. So banning them would either mean that a) have a blanket ban where not even Dock residents would be allowed BBQs and picnics or b) allowing dock residents to continue to have BBQs etc but not allow anyone from outside the estate to do so. Either solution quite simply isn't enforceable when we have one security guard and potentially hundreds of people using the riverside. Essentially having the Thames path open for all means all being able to use it however they see fit. I can't see how Brentford Dock security and management can cherry pick what people are allowed and not allowed to there when it comes to reasonable activities that include both walking and picnics.With that in mind, we come yet again to an unpopular solution. Put up gates in order to protect the land. If there was a legitimate way to ensure that anyone can walk there but only Dock Residents can use it for BBQs then we might have considered that option. But there isn't, as far as I can see.Regarding the future,I don't see why residents of the newly built flats will go further afield when a decent stretch of riverside is literally a five minute walk away. Once again, our uncomfortable decision regarding the gates has been made due to necessity not from a lofty position of arrogance and wanting to 'pull up the drawbridge'. Of course no one living here wants to block out other local people (that's why the riverside has been open to everyone for almost forty plus years) but times have changed and we unfortunately have to adapt and change with them.

G Pursall ● 1197d

I too live on the estate and it is certainly true that there has never been any suggestion before of putting up gates and limiting access to the estate. The problem is that several members here seem to have missed the reason why this decision has now been taken.This previous summer, we saw a larger influx of people using the riverside area than ever before due to the pandemic. This caused problems with littering and overcrowding, something that our very hard working security guards (only one of whom is on duty at any one time) struggled to control or contain. If this was an isolated incident then I’m sure residents would have overlooked it and moved on. However, it showed the stark reality of what would happen to this stretch of riverside once all the new homes in Brentford are built. We are not talking about a few flats here. We are talking the huge Ballymore development, the re-development of Morrisons, the re-furbishment of the old police station. We are talking, quite literally, of thousands of new flats being built on our doorstep. Flats, as others have made clear, that will not have any riverside access. So it is pretty obvious where all these new residents will go if they want to stroll along the river, have a picnic, have a barbecue, have several drinks late into the summer night with music playing as the sun sets...Our reaction to this, as residents on the estate, the people who actually pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the land, was to put up gates to protect it. Not because we have become Little Englanders or because gentrification has finally found it’s way into Brentford Dock, but because we want to ensure that the land that we pay for is protected, not over-run, over used or spoiled. It is not a pleasant decision and it is one that has never been taken before because, quite simply, there was no reason too. The situation, unfortunately, has now changed.I wish other members of this forum could see this. Think about the reality of the next few years. Hundreds of people using that riverside area. Hundreds of people walking down other parts of the estate to get there. So litter, noise and disruption not just on the Thames side lawn but similar problems all through the estate as people walk to and from the riverside. Think of all the new costs that will be incurred, not just in maintaining the Thames side area but all our other pathways and similar areas. And who will bear the sole brunt of this new financial burden? Brentford dock residents and no one else.I think it is narrow minded and naive in the extreme to boldly state that the Thames path on Brentford Dock should remain free for all without seriously considering the future implications for the residents here. This is the only reason we want to put up gates. Not to pettily close ourselves off or to block out long standing residents of Brentford; it is to protect the land that we pay for, land that, in a few years time, will come under serious threat. None of us want this but, seriously, what other course could we realistically take?

GPursall ● 1198d

As the thread has come back on course I thought I might contribute again.I wanted to keep it short but was not possible..There are no public rights of way or public footpaths through Brentford Dock. Now if the Council want to change that and make it public, then I would think they are going to open themselves up to whole lot of compensation claims from Brentford Dock residents.As Steve Allum asserts the new footbridge (Thames Path) by our clubhouse links the new Development with the our estate via a new gate on the boundary of the Ballymore estate. The bridge As I understand was funded by Ballymore. The Council have allowed the new Estate to be built with minimal recreational space.So no guessing where the residents will eventually ramble.I dont know what the Council promised Ballymore during the early negotiation’s,but Im wondering if they promised them riverfront access as was advertised on their hoardings on the high street.Quite clearly their new development does not have any riverfront access.As some of the previous walkers have commented, how nice and tidy the Brentford Dock estate looks when they come walking cycling or running in my private Garden.Its no coincidence it is tidy and clean, as our fantastic team of Gardeners, Cleaners and Maintenance staff that keep it that way. Now as I have previously stated, I pay a considerable service charge each month to employ these great staff, who will be in danger of losing their livelihoods if its made a public space. Perhaps some of you regulars would like to start contributing to the upkeep as I and all my fellow residents do! I certainly cant see the Council picking up the tab in the future.Presumably some of you have your own Gardens and spaces How would you like it if we all came over to your Gardens and walked over your manicured lawns and trashed them?In a previous reply,Anne England mention’s her friend who lives on the Dock.On Annes admission she accessed Syon Gardens through our gate. Well I doubt she paid the Syon Garden entrance fee? This behaviour, if she was stopped by Syon staff could lead to the gate being chained and access denied to all of the Brentford Dock residents.I know a lot of the residents in Brentford Dock no longer walk on our estate because of the extra pressure brought about by the lockdowns.Thanks to the Jim Storrar post earlier,I contacted the planners prior to the article 4 being discussed last week. Only one of them had the decency to reply to my concerns before the meeting. Once the minutes of that meeting are released i might comment further. But as the Council went to extreme measures to stop our permitted development I dare say it was agreed before the meeting ever took place and they didn't look at the all the concerns voiced.I have also heard one of our new gates has been vandalised already and who do you think will pick up the repair bill? With all the goings on, the Council have got one heck of a lot to explaining to do. The Council have stirred this up and its their behaviour that stinks of double standards. They are the ones that are “Gentrifying” Brentford not us.

David Cook ● 1200d

We sometimes go for a peaceful walk along the river in Brentford Dock. Never more than a handful of people around and, after all, this is the sort of private ("geroff my") land that was snatched from communities by Thatcher and her project to bribe people with public money/discounts to vote for her lot years ago. And I very much doubt that anything like a majority of residents have voted for it (or even been asked to). Much more likely is a small minority vote of a few owner residents plus a load of absentee landlords. As it seems that the secretly-prepared land grab, a new version of The Enclosures, was not completed in time, I guess anyone can continue to visit this area, which is part of the heritage of Brentford and should not be liable to enclosure by absentee landlords. Maybe we might have to straddle a low gate or just walk up Augustus Close (not gated in time, apparently). It's quite sad, with the Brentford Project across the water being planned with maximum public access and a thriving community of retail outlets, to see the Dock go all gated community and try to keep this bit of our communal heritage just for the few of them. The Thames is surely for everyone and I look forward to LBH issuing a ruling to that effect in this area. A peaceful walk by the Thames harms nobody there and I'd be perfectly happy with a ban on non residents using facilities such as BBQs, having picnics etc. We've never done anything but walk round, with masks on since Covid came. I did get a good video clip of seagulls from the Easterly point recently: www.flickr.com/photos/chericbaker/50779456012/in/album-72157712739680902/  A final thought. If the gates surreptitiously installed so far lacked locking mechanisms and no fobs had been issued when the Article 4 restrictions were enacted then presumably it would be a serious breach of the new rules to install any locking mechanism or distribute any fobs after that moment. So maybe the minority schemers over there were not so smart after all and have just totally wasted large sums on ineffectual enclosure barriers. I was chatting to the guys painting the low lock-free gates on Dock Road yesterday afternoon. They did not in the slightest bar pedestrian access to the Dock via Dock Road (just a small section of pavement, but no locks). So has anyone else seen evidence of unfinished "geroff my land" preparations at the time Article 4 was approved? And just when was it approved?

Eric Baker ● 1204d