Well Oliver, I certainly can’t complain that you have failed to exercise your own prerogative of robust free speech! Obviously, if you continue to believe that I am personally and singly responsible for BTC’s problems and the resultant delays in High Street regeneration, then you will naturally find my activities irksome and feel justified in your more acerbic comments. You have however raised a few more points to be addressed.Maligning BTC’s activities: Yes, I have, and feel completely justified in having done so. The smooth, urbane and caring PR presentation of this group’s representatives belied the quite unpleasant and ruthless approach they took when they felt that would be effective. In this they were careless not only of moral, but legal niceties, and I could have divulged far more detail than I ever did, with documented evidence. None of that is relevant to anyone else however, and I shan’t continue flogging a dead horse.Profit a necessary end motivation: Of course, - it would be silly to deny it. You accurately represent my “railings” however as being against a “quick profit”, which to my mind carries potentially more criticisable connotations. Leaving aside the rare altruistic philanthropist, any investor will want to see a profit with perfect moral legitimacy. When his project impacts upon others, the extent to which the profit motive overrides community concerns becomes relevant. The planning department will always recognise the need for a developer to make a profit, but they will also examine his proposal for the degree of public benefit it provides. Hounslow’s planning department were critical of the Sth High St’s failings with regard to the waterfront, and a revised scheme had been promised for over a year without being forthcoming. This failure itself was as much of a reason for planning consent being withheld as was failure to comply with S106’s and legal agreements. The nature of the group’s desire for a “quick” turnover meant that insufficient attention had been given to all these. Had they been practical developers themselves rather than middlemen, they would have looked further ahead.BTC no longer a factor: I’m really not concerned. That’s the word “on the street”, and seems backed up by various parties including those within BTC. I’d be interested to know the various parties involved, but it doesn’t affect the situation. Regardless of their identities, (quite undiscoverable through normal channels), the fact remains that more than one party is involved in land ownership, and this is a hurdle to overcome for so long as the Council demands single ownership.Brentford needs: “Evil developers” yes, “sinister speculators” no.Representative views: I presume you mean that they are not representative of a majority? Without polling every household, no claim could be made either way. The Brentford Area Action Plan consultations have been the conduit through which all views could be placed before the Council. More than twice as many locals indicated their wish that the boatyard be retained in the latest round as presented views of whatever nature in the previous consultation. Even taken all together, those numbers are a small minority of Brentford residents, but they comprise the residents prepared to have a view and make it known.“Acolytes”? I’m naturally aware of the many from all walks of life and from all political parties within the ranks of councillors and residents who support my views on the boatyard issue, but I suspect that they would take affront at being regarded as my acolytes, and rightly so. For others than myself, the issue is not a personal one but a matter of strategic planning and local feeling for character and practicality.Attempting to preserve my place of business IS of course self-serving, - I could never pretend otherwise and do not believe that anyone could fail to recognise that. In doing so, I make no apology for pulling out all the stops and utilising all arguments available to me. That includes making use of heritage and conservation issues, in addition to sustainability, ecology, local support etc etc. To say I attempt to “pass off” my appeal to conservation issues as being for Brentford’s benefit rather than my own (?), seems to stigmatise the argument unnecessarily. Either the case for the historical value of the dock is valid or it is not, whether it is mine or anyone else’s. Such information as I’ve been able to present for the heritage value of the premises to Brentford, will doubtless be examined critically by those officers responsible for conservation issues, and if they consider that information to be valueless they will pass judgement accordingly. Similarly, my attempts to portray the boatyard’s place in Brentford’s history as integral to the town’s character is something anyone can pass their own judgement upon, as evidently you do from a critical viewpoint. That critical view is fair enough, and if my “endless attempts” have proved wearisome to you I am sorry for it – could I perhaps have presented things more entertainingly?My view is that retention of the boatyard within any regeneration scheme will enhance the appeal and value of the Town centre. Further flung boroughs and businesses have discovered this in similar situations, Banbury being notable. Even given the appalling initial outline scheme of BTC, such use could have been incorporated with little to no modification. (Though some more significant changes would have made better provision).A scheme for the waterside satisfactory to the Council was never produced despite endless requests and encouragement over the years. The Council cannot force developers to come up with detailed plans and building partners, nor force them to build once consent given. With Sth of the High St, it never even got to the detailed plan stage!Even leaving aside the issue of splintered ownerships, and the disinclination to acquire those major parcels that were openly on offer to BTC, how could the Council grant the planning consent they were minded to, in the absence of a suitable plan?It might just be possible that the target of your understandable ire is misplaced.
Nigel Moore ● 6830d