A bit more comment of interest, this is the letter sent in to Hounslow Planning by English Heritage on 17th October 2000"While I note that some of our previous concerns have been addressed by the revised proposals, in particular, the retention of The Brewery Tap public house and Town Wharf, and some minor improvements effected to the design of the pedestrian mall and the service yard to the rear of the supermarket, the majority of the points raised in our previous letters and discussed most recently at the meeting of 11 August, have yet to be addressed. In the light of this, we remain of the view that the proposals are fundamentally flawed and will fail to create a coherent development that will ensure the sustained regeneration of the area, both economically and environmentally, and reflect and complement the distinctive character of the area. Importantly, they do not acknowledge the other major development sites within the area, and, do not acknowledge the surviving grain and scale of this unique canalside area or its special character.Our concerns are as follows:Block size and pedestrian movementThe very large footprint of the proposed supermarket does not reflect the surviving scale and grain of this part of the site. Both Kim Wilkie Associates and Auketts have shown that there are opportunities to introduce larger blocks in locations in the eastern part of the site which already accommodate existing large buildings, thus avoiding the potentially adverse impact on the established character of the area. The revised proposals still fail to provide for effective and attractive pedestrian movement across the site, particularly in relation to north-south routes. At present, these are numerous, and are a characteristic and historic feature of the area. The particular locations of the east-west pedestrian routes, particularly those between the large retail/commercial blocks, many of which are little more than tunnels, or carried at high level are also of concern. These run to the rear of the supermarket and adjacent to service areas and car parks, and despite some modest changes, are likely to prove unpleasant and possibly dangerous to users, especially at night.Access and servicingThe proposed servicing/car park access arrangements would have a destructive impact on the surviving parts of the High Street and militate against the realisation of the fullest benefits from the development of the site. In the western part of the site, the proposed service-road requires the demolition of nos 131-134 High Street and the creation of an oversized junction. The loss of this nineteenth century terrace would further fragment the long established High Street frontage that survives in this part of the town, and militate against pedestrian movement along the High Street. Furthermore, the proposed new service road would run adjacent to the new residential development which is to be constructed as part of the scheme to repair and reuse St Lawrence’s Church and would have a potentially adverse impact on residential amenity, and possibly the viability of this scheme too. While the service area no longer abuts the canal, which is to be welcomed, the resultant space, which is in reality, a vehicle-turning head, would be reduced to a backland area offering little activity or interest.To the east, the other proposed service road which runs south from the Half Acre junction, is over-wide and has a poor relationship with the proposed adjacent buildings. To avoid fragmenting the High Street frontage yet further and creating another oversized junction, the access could take the form of an opening through or under a building, much as exists today. The currently proposed road and building layout require further thought to avoid the creation of a confused, semi-public backland area would be an unpleasant and potentially hostile pedestrian route.I note that a turning head has been created adjacent to the existing bank. Catherine Wheel Road is located in this area and was formed from Catherine Wheel Yard, which is shown on the 1800 of New Brentford and appears on Glovers’ 1635 map as Y Whele Wharfe. This is clearly a route of considerable historical significance and should be retained in its original position. I am also concerned that using this as a shared surface and turning head could provide confusing and possible dangerous to pedestrians. Proposed new buildingsThe proposed new residential buildings to the west of Town Wharf still appear to be confused, and would seem to have ground floors largely consisting of covered parking areas. To promote interest and activity around the water in this location, it would be better to have commercial uses at street level with residential units above. As previously stated the proposed loss of the rear part of the listed building nos. 129-130 High Street is unlikely to be acceptable.We are also concerned that a number of unlisted buildings of interest and value which we consider could add character to the proposed development and assist in its integration with the existing townscape, are to be lost. Most of these buildings have been previously identified by English Heritage and discussed in detail in Susie Barson’s report, a copy of which I have forwarded to your Council. Kim Wilkie has noted further buildings and others are included in the Aukett’s recent report; e.g. the Wilson and Kyles’s frontage building and the timber clad sheds on Johnson’s Island. In view of this, we consider that the extent of demolition should be reconsidered as most of these buildings clearly have potential for beneficial reuse.We still have concerns regarding the juxtaposition of the Dock Road housing in relation to the existing working industrial uses, as these would appear to be incompatible uses. In order to comment further on this part of the development, we would need to see further information on the heights of the buildings and levels, in particular, that of the basement/semi-basement parking area.I am also concerned that the sketch proposals show buildings of up to 6 storeys on the High Street frontage and 7 storeys off Dock Road, which would seem overlarge given the existing scale of these areas. We consider that further information on the height of the proposed buildings across the site as a whole, including cross-sections and elevations should be forwarded for consideration at this stage.The future of the Market PlaceEnglish Heritage has long pressed for the removal of car-parking from the area directly in front of and centred on the existing Magistrates Court (together with the enclosing balustrading) and the re-paving and re-use of the former Market Place as a significant, accessible and attractive public urban space at the very heart of Brentford.We consider that the absorption of The Market Place as but one small part of a larger ‘Town Square’, spanning across the busy High Street (on which significant vehicular traffic flow is likely to be maintained), together with the cutting-back of the building frontage line on the south side of the High Street, would not only lead to the complete loss in the special identity of the long-established ‘Market Place’, and the further fragmentation of the High Street, but would provide little more than incoherent and ill-defined space bisected by a major vehicular traffic route."
Nigel Moore ● 7002d