Forum Topic

Heidelburg Closing in Brentford

Just read that Heidelburg are closing their offices in Brentford,just wait until the Ballymore lot get their hands on the site, hundreds more unsalable flats and more major disruption for Brentford, but lots of money for Hounslow Council, will this ever end, or will the council wake up to what is being done, just wonder how much the council make out of this for a new swing park !!!!! as a generous constribution from Ballymore to go ahead regardless of local views.

Richard Buchanan ● 1657d31 Comments

Except the administration and GLA are apparently ' Socialist based'.Recent local events show that is only for Election time and is really exactly the same as the Govt.like Covid, Cronyism seems to infect anyone and no-one in Politics seems to be immune.

Raymond Havelock ● 1643d

We really do need national legislation to tax change of use planning gains. 40%? A land tax is a rather good idea because it's impossible to move your land to the Caymans to escape the tax. But it's not going to happen because our chumocracy seems dedicated to the idea that the rich should get ricer at the expense of everyone else. But don't we live in a democracy? Well, not noticeably. The current liars and incompetents got just 43% of the votes and it would have been even less without Corbyn. In a democracy that signals the start of coalition discussions. Here it was magically re-formulated as a dictatorial majority of MPs. Traditional it may be but don't mistake our electoral system for democracy.

Eric Baker ● 1643d

Land Values would not be so high if Local Authorites were not so willing to change their designation and flirt with property developers.This happened with the quiet change of use designation for the Morrisons site years before which trebled the land value.The purchaser of the Heidleburg site would not have paid that sort of money without some sort of guarantee of what they can do with it.So who, where and how do they get that indication?It can only come from one sector, the local authority and the GLA.The vendor is the accidental beneficiary. If it were to remain designated as industrial use only, then Heidelberg may well have still sold up but got a lower rate.It's done deals and promised behind closed doors that has lead to this.

Raymond Havelock ● 1643d

When our shattered troops returned home after WW1 they looked around and saw that they were not allowed easy access to Chiswick House Grounds and Gunnersbury Park. Those places were for toffs alone (although they did provide subservient employment).No wonder some things changed in the 1920s.

Jim Lawes ● 1643d

This is an interesting thread that brings together many problems. 1. The loss of employment in Brentford. 2. Inadequate truly affordable housing for local people. 3.The threat to allotments. 4. The role of the aristocracy and rich bankers in land management. 5. People buying flats as investments - not as homes. 6, Brentford having been a wasteland for over 40 years with empty eyesores and wasted space.I would suggest that all these problems have one denominator - the private ownership of land. Land is a free gift of nature.No labour nor capital is expended to create land.As society prospers - so land values (and hence house prices) increase.All of our activities - work - shopping - leisure - providing services such as roads, transport, hospitals, schools etc. etc. add to land values.So who deserves to receive land wealth? - Just land owners or all of us?Heidelburg bought their land for much less than its current book value of £18.1m and are selling for £40m, Its the people of Brentford, London and the UK who have created that value but we receive nothing as the £20m+ profit will be sent to Heidelburg in Germany. Far better we collect an annual Land Value Tax and use the receipts to abolish income tax, national insurance, vat, TV licences etc. Land prices would fall, homes would become cheaper as nobody would buy for land speculation, empty sites would be put to good use creating more local jobs, wages would rise as employers compete to employ workers. Green sites could be cheply created in our towns and cities, What's not to like?

Dave Wetzel ● 1643d

That is not entirely correct. The Park was sold at a nominal price below the land value of the time. But the estate north of Popes lane was part of the site and part of the covenant was to build Council Housing. the Borough of Ealing undertook that and the site to the west of GP was undertaken by Brentford and Chiswick.The land ran as far as Ascott Allotments ( which remains also protected by covenant) and the railway and suburban spread (which actually drove the decision for the Rothshilds to vacate.) As for the CIC, it is a poor set up. Why are two council officers from both councils in such cahoots with them and very reluctant to engage with local residents or the Bowls club or anything else going on in Gunnersbury Park and yet clearly aiding the CIC in their quest?Why are councillors, keen to get their names on missives about well being, older activities and such so quiet when sit comes to removing this very form of amenity for what is a novelty and not a sport or constant community activity? Bowls, one of very few sports  that cam be played from pre teen to end of life is reviving all over the world but being stamped out by councillors with no real thought other than keeping cosy with the CiC rather than asking where the money is all really going - and Gunnersbury has had a lot of grant money and  not that much to show for such sums.Totally contradicts what the mayor of Londons own sports bodie is saying and his vow to protect small sports.It absolutely stinks.it's a Public Park, not a profit centre and if it is rename it . As it's a breach of trade description.

Raymond Havelock ● 1649d

Totally agree they have made Brentford and for that matter greater London anti business.

Robert Ayres ● 1650d

Where are these large areas of concrete? There is the car park, of course, but I'm assuming that was there already. I would have thought that the Sports' Hub is a welcome addition to the park to many.I'm a relatively new frequenter of Gunnersbury (on my bike!) and I see that there are rather decrepit areas of shelter/seating in places. These should either be removed and replaced or a big renovation job done.

Anne England ● 1650d

“The intention is for the CIC to become financially self-supporting via events”… which is being achieved by confiscating community assets (e.g. the Gunnersbury Park Bowls Club) and concreting over everything else.

David Marshall ● 1650d

Yes, the park was  owned and supported equally by the Council of Brentford & Chiswick, and the Council of Ealing until both were absorbed into LBH and LBE. It was then jointly funded and manged by LBE and LBH but this clearly didn't work very well, so the CIC was established as an independent body, controlled only at arms length by the councils via their nomination of directors (3 each, plus an independent chair)The CIC now manages the park and the way the large grants for upgrading (from the likes of Heritage Lottery Fund) are managed.The intention is for the CIC to become financially self-supporting via events, rental of some sporting facilities and catering. Events and catering have both been severely affected by the pandemic and of course catering income has largely gone up in smoke. The councils have therefore been called upon to help out in the crisis, and they have provided a certain amount of support.

Guy Lambert ● 1650d

Yep, just as well to check the facts. I think somewhere along the way though that Ealing and Hounslow began to share the cost of the upkeep of the park. Google may tell me or maybe Guru Guy will ...

Anne England ● 1650d

Sold by Lionel de Rothschild to fund his purchase of another estate, according to Wikipedia, for £130.000"In 1925, following the death of Nathan's grandson Leopold de Rothschild, Leopold's wife, Maria, and son Lionel, sold the 200 acre/80 hectare Gunnersbury estate, which was entirely contained within the Brentford Urban District,[13] to the adjacent Ealing Borough Council and Acton Borough Council for £130,000. The land lay entirely outside their boundaries and the purchase was driven by snobbery. The "Queen of the Suburbs" did not want Brentford's municipal housing on its doorstep and the Mayor of Acton concurred, persuading her Borough Council to make it a joint purchase.[2]Following the First World War, there was a demand for house-building land. In addition the construction of the Great West Road, immediately south of the estate, was attracting modern industries along its "Golden Mile". Lionel Nathan de Rothschild had purchased an estate at Exbury, Hampshire in 1919 and was investing in a fine woodland garden there, so selling off the Gunnersbury estate presented an attractive opportunity. Disgruntled Ealing ratepayers wrote to the papers complaining about the burden on their rate bills"Bit of a different story

Guy Lambert ● 1650d

Was Gunnersbury Park gifted to the Councils or was it bought, perhaps at a favourable price? I'm sure I heard something that the park was bought - okay, I'll google it.

Anne England ● 1651d

A long way in reverse in many instances,Raymond.

Keith Iddon ● 1651d

Funnily enough this was a keystone of Socialist European countries!When one considers the generosity of the Rothschilds with Gunnersbury Park " For the townsfolk of Acton Ealing and Brentford& Chiswick to the " socially aware'" Management who now run it like a fiefdom. Have we come a long way?Yes. but not much has been learned.

Raymond Havelock ● 1651d

Here the local landed gentry want to build all over the allotments instead!

Vanessa Smith ● 1651d

They do this in most countries where apartment living is common. Not here though where apartment living is being foisted onto a generation but without the facilities.In some countries every flat built has to have an allocated allotment space within 1km.  Otherwise it is not permitted to be built.

Raymond Havelock ● 1651d

I had luck to see with my own eyes what solution they have for this issue in western Austria. 1st of all in the basement they not just have garage, but also storage room for each of the flats, like wooden cages with on lock with a size around 3-4 sqm. Then there is a room around 20 sqm with lines already there where you can hang your clothes and there is a dehumidifier which senses the high humidity and starts by itself. You just need to hang the cloth and later go down and collect it. Although there families living in the same building has less friction and definitely private objects/property is sacred, no-one will steal your cloths. Have I mentioned that even on the street they don't lock the bicycles? Or inside the house the bike storage is not a locked cage, still without locking they have their thousands pounds worth electric bikes.Well maybe one day we will get there too. :)

Endre Ady ● 1651d

Hardly a contribution to Hounslow being 'Cleaner and Greener' either, using a tumble drier from when washing comes out of the machine must cost an absolute fortune. Time for a re- think on design of flats.

Vanessa Smith ● 1653d

Most people in these flats have no choice but to buy a tumble dryer. Aside from the horrifying amount of electricity these things use up, tumble driers are one of the main causes of fires in buildings (about 1,500 per year).

David Marshall ● 1653d

The thing that bugs me about flats and especially the design of them which is so relevant if so many family households are going to be living in them - is the provision for laundry. In other countries a space is set aside, possibly a protected area on the roof for hanging washing out. This may seem to be a trivial concern, but if the only alternative is for washing to have to be draped on radiators indoors you can see the problems. Condensation, leading to damp and mould over time, even with small balconies - do people really want their smalls etc. dangling around for all to see? Do any of our planning committee members or planning officers for that matter ever ask these questions? It's all fine and dandy these right-on people banging on about bloody bike stores and recycling bins, what about some sense and consideration for the living conditions of the people indoors? From experience I can tell them, as many could, even one small baby creates a lot of washing!

Vanessa Smith ● 1653d

You read some fascinating theories online about why so many flats are proliferating. One is that investors are going for bricks and mortar even if the properties are left empty as they are worried about a massive banking crash, and the other, even more sinister, is that they are trying to prevent ordinary people owning property to bring about a serf generation of people with no capital. In both cases, this is where the council having a pro-active campaign against empty properties would be most useful.

Ian Speed ● 1654d

I should have added that the last time I passed, our marketing HQ had become a branch of Dreams. I hope they managed to fix the leaking roof or there's be a lot of soggy mattresses.

Guy Lambert ● 1654d

100 years ago (slight exaggeration) I was responsible for property acquisition and management at Honeywell, based in what is now Great West House. I therefore studied stuff about commercial property, a matter with which i was previously unfamiliar, and learnt that the strongest indication governing the location of head office was the chairman's home address.Our marketing director at the time lived near High Wycombe. The board decided we needed a new marketing HQ next to the M40 in Loudwater (a suburb of High Wycombe). Our data Centre director lived near Chelmsford. Most surprisingly it emerged that we needed a new data centre... in Chelmsford.

Guy Lambert ● 1654d

" Wives wanting to be near Harrods"That may also be the reason the American Embassy was not moved into the Gillette Building... as was once rumoured.

Jim Lawes ● 1655d

Thirty years ago SmithKlineBeecham considered moving from Brentford to Reading but instead moved from Beecham House to New Horizons Court near Gillette Corner. The rumour was that we did not move to Reading because the American Directors' wives wanted to have homes near Harrods.

Chris Dakers ● 1656d

GSK and/or SKY would be a good double. Neither actually need to be in Brentford and could relocate anywhere in the country. Brentford will very soon be a dormitory ghost town.

N V Brooks ● 1656d

The biggest single failure has been that of regeneration. It has completely done the opposite for business and employment large  and small. Focussed only on non productive laptop based ventures and made it almost impossible for proper long term growth employment with long term occupations.All that the GLA and Local Authorities have managed is to hinder almost every aspect of commerce and thus eradicate quality local employment through fixations on policies and hiking up costs rendering many businesses complex unviable.No point building short term homes too small and too dense when there is nothing here to employ the occupants.So they will all have to travel probably longer and longer distances, presumably by Walking or Cycling!It's probably with putting a fiver down at the bookies on it being GSK next.

Raymond Havelock ● 1656d

Yes parchment was also made in Brentford. Why are they leaving?

Nicholas Beard ● 1656d

Fewer jobs in Brentford and inevitably more high rise blocks of flats. Would be nice to have open space to the river with connections to Watermans park.

Chris Dakers ● 1656d

That's sad to hear.Not only were their Offices there..but also a main showroom for their prestigious Printing Trade machinery used all over.Our region was formidable in the field of Printing.Most of their products are made in China.. and the extra special equipment in Germany.Oh dear. What will become of dear ole Brentford.

Jim Lawes ● 1656d