Forum Topic

I suppose Cllr Ellers has similar feelings of frustrated activity to the councillors in the mid-20th century who rushed out the development to Brentford centre that we're living with now.But isn't at least part of his answer in the preamle to this  year's "Brentord Plan Options for the Future" questionnaire : "New rules about the planning system have been released by the Government.  This means hat the Brentford Plan has to be produced in line with new planning processes very diiferent to those in line (then)".Nigel I think the council will have expected around 240 responses.  If they's wanted more they could have circulated the questionnaire via supermarkets, local community and resident groups, household doors as well as library and web-site.I'm awaiting the council's proposals after their publication of their consultants Aukett's preferred framework for South of Brentford High Street. The council has a duty to ensure that the plan is optimal for the long-term needs of Brentford.Developers have short-term profit maximisation priorities which most certainly in many areas run counter to this community interest.  In the initial meetings Brentford residents drew attention to a number of proposals counter to community interest - retention of Brewery Tap, Town Wharf and English Heritage protected can side.  Aukett's consultancy adds improvements in access east-west, north south to the water-side and improvements in building layout amongst other things.Developers in Brentford have erested buildings counter to Hounslow planning requirements (Brentford Lock west side building too near canal), Kew Bridge Development... One notable feature is that the British Gas (Barratts) and Ferry Quays develpments  lack any green space.  Yet green space in the urban town centre is what Brentford needs.  a recent study in Tokyo showed that residents over 75yrs had longer lifespan when nearby green space was available .I would

Michael Fletcher ● 7131d

“What can we do” Bronwyn? Well it’s a bit late now, but did you take the opportunity to contribute to the consultation Justin mentioned? Only 230 people did so! Perhaps its import was insufficiently publicised. There may be as Matt suggests, more opinions on Brentford’s development than there are people here, but those count little unless the Council are made aware of them. Also, it is all very well saying something should be done, but WHAT that something should be needs addressing. While outline planning consent for the whole scheme was granted years ago, there were legitimate concerns over the effect on the waterside and a separate strategy for this was likewise later granted outline consent. Yet this too failed to take on board concerns over the loss of water based employment industry and its historical links to the town. A revised scheme was promised some 2 years ago, which has not yet been forthcoming. There has been no consultation with the boatyards, whether with the developers or British Waterways, neither of whom want such operations to continue. It would simply interfere with their concept of using the waterside merely as a value-enhancing adjunct to their scheme.The same mind set informed the Commerce Road proposals, BW’s CEO having declared that Brentford’s waterside was no longer suitable for anything other than “highly desirable residential” use. Such blatant and commercial disregard for either waterways heritage or the requirements of canal users is both short-sighted and unacceptable. The overwhelming rejection of the Commerce Road proposal, in part because of just such considerations, is an encouraging sign.A re-drawn scheme for South of the High St to embrace the waterways might not solve the site acquisition problems, but it would certainly go a long way towards resolving a lot of others.

Nigel Moore ● 7131d