Forum Topic

Commerce Road Inquiry

The Inquiry into the ISIS proposal for Commerce Road resumed yesterday at the Jury Inn near Heathrow.Having heard the Council's evidence last year, we are now listening to the ISIS experts, following which the community groups will be able to present their objections.The Inspector is open to any individual opinions being expressed for those who wish to come along and ask to be heard. It will run for the next few weeks between Tues and Fridays, from 10am each day.There is a final week in February which has been set aside for the independent witnesses and summing up.Any development here will have a profound effect on the Brentford waterside and on any subsequent scheme for Sth of the High Street. If you have any cogent argument one way or another, this is your opportunity to have it count.A reminder of what's projected, with the 15 story towers unseen from this perspective:

Nigel Moore ● 6709d59 Comments

I thought readers might empathise with this letter from Friday's Telegraph :Soulless buildings on the banks of the ThamesSir - Something has gone terribly wrong with building developments on the banks of the Thames, which should be the great glory of London.We have accepted a mediocre ribbon-development of undistinguished and sometimes poorly built flats along both sides of the river, from below Greenwich into the heart of London.Now I notice that the old, interesting and varied riverside streets of Middlesex - at Isleworth, for example - are being tidied into the most soulless expanses of housing.At least when the Victorians destroyed higgledy-piggledy historic Thames-side settlements, they put something grand in their place. But since the Chelsea Embankment was constructed, we have turned it into another traffic-choked road system.How we would love to sit in the old inns among the now destroyed wharfs of Chelsea. How sad that the remaining charming pockets of Middlesex are now going the same way.Elizabeth Turner, London W11

Tim Henderson ● 6579d

Having now read the article in the Chronicle, I’m relieved it didn’t too badly jumble what was said. It presents a good picture overall, with BW’s contribution making it rounded.A misquote re comparative loads though – a 100+ ton barge can carry half a dozen not a dozen lorry loads. That’s still a significant benefit, and when you consider that that load is carried using one engine instead of 6, the benefit is much more than relieving congestion. Further, even if a lorry takes half the time to make an inner city journey, that has to be multiplied by 6 to reach the same capacity, so in effect the total time taken by barge is less. For non-time sensitive loads, the argument for water transport is unassailable.At its peak, the canals in London alone carried nearly 3 million tons per year I believe.Plans for south of the High Street proceed apace quite independently, but as Neil suggests, a win for British Waterways would make resistance to an equivalent density and disregard for character that much more difficult.

Nigel Moore ● 6581d

I would also like to congratulate all who were invovled in this enquiry.This application will be the benchmark for future development in Brentford. If the developer wins just watch what happens to the Southside.

Neil Chippendale ● 6581d

You rotter!!!Haven't seen it myself yet.

Nigel Moore ● 6581d

Good picture of you in the Hounslow Chronicle this week Nigel...and a good write up too of your concerns about unsuitable Canal developmentsI hadn't realised that you were under 60 though!!

Jim Lawes ● 6582d

Yes,a very big well done to all involved for there hard work.

Paul Fisher ● 6584d

I was unable to make it yesterday and congratulate those that did, and all those who worked so hard during the process.

Matt Harmer ● 6584d

It was the longest day of all the Inquiry days, didn't finish 'till about 8pm! The determination was to make it the final day come what may. Rule 6's went first with their closing submissions, Mary Cook for the Council took a good 2 hours with excellent summaries without mincing words, then Mr Edwards for Isis/BW went on for quite a bit longer, almost totally ignoring third party evidence (well there wasn't much he could answer on that score). He had little to add other than repeating much of the nonsense previously said. As Denis Browne characterised the speech - it boiled down to saying 'we were able to afford more and better 'experts' than the Council, so we win!'Not a bad turn-out; Genevieve Hibbs was there, a couple from the Island development, Deborah James from above Robin Grove, Cllr Reid at the start, and an assortment of others. It was a fairly bare room by the end though!Well we'll see, I think we all did the best we could and can now only wait for some months until the outcome.

Nigel Moore ● 6585d

One wonders how many people from Brentford, indeed from the London Borough of Hounslow, attended the Inquiry and made statements and/or contributions.I understand our busy friend Nigel was there..and that he has been much impressed and encouraged with recent Forum input from Duncan.  Doesn't he read and research well. A great asset.I have nothing to add..except offering thanks and non-active support for all those doing the hard work.

Jim Lawes ● 6585d

Final day tomorrow for those who are free to attend in support.Jury's Inn, near Heathrow off the A30, starting 10am.Closing statements from all parties.

Nigel Moore ● 6586d

For anyone who mised the radio programme last night, you can listen to it on the following Radio4 Listen Again website (click on the link):http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/pip/r8b7c/

Duncan Walker ● 6590d

I missed it, - ironically I was being interviewed by another journalist, who stayed longer than expected. She's also looking to do a program on the canals, but is casting her net too broadly at the moment and is looking for a handle to pitch her ideas.It does sound as though tonight's got its message across after all, from what you say, - the producer had many of us concerned that the degree of editing out of anything controversial might have weakened it, but I must admit I caught the last 35 secs and liked Gerry Northam's closing.Will look forward to trying the 'listen again' option tomorrow.

Nigel Moore ● 6591d

A record of the proceedings of the government select committee, reviewing British Waterways, mentioned in the programme,can be read on website,  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmenvfru.htmFor instance the session 26 Feb2007 Oral evidence of Inland Waterway has interesting things said about the Brentford Basin development.

Duncan Walker ● 6591d

The programme was very good. It certainly highlighted the dreadful state of the barge-borne freight operation on our inland waterways. What came across was that this was a result of British Waterways (BW) seeing themselves not in the freight business, even though it is part of their purpose.It is scandalous that Robin Evans, the CEO and BW can get away with running down the freight operation capability of the network. Even when the government clearly has a policy to encourage freight on the waterways, BW are actively destroying its capability. BW should be censored by government and directed to change their stance. Can't the Locol Councils put pressure on the government? It did say there has been a government enquiry and a report on its findings will be published this summer.The CEO of BW talked as if the waterways' freight capability was almost finished - they had closed their department dealing with freight last year; they want to close the Brentford Lock Wharf, the last one in the West London; they scupper projects.....I would sack him and put someone in, like they have in the PLA, who is managing a 50% growth in freight transport over one year, in the tidal reaches of the Thames, not covered by BW.I wonder if the programme will do anything?Nigel was interviewed and put his case well.

Duncan Walker ● 6591d

Nigel,That sounds very positive and conjures up a picture to me of building a 'multi-modal' transport facility based around Commerce Road. We are in a unique position to be a hub for tranport by canal, river, rail (next to canal), road and air. We are positioned perfectly for distribution to/from London AND able to incorporate less polluting and efficient means of transport by water and rail.If the infrastructure was in place, it could provide an ideal place for food retailers like Abel & Cole who distribute and sell locally produced vegetables and foods; also quality supermarkets like Waitrose who are environmentally aware with their sourcing and distribution.Maybe it could also be a catalyst to re-establish a Brentford Food Market, certainly it gives a current angle to it.Now a Multi-model distribution facility, incorporating canal and river transport, would seem to me to be an exciting vision for Hounslow Borough and Brentford.

Duncan Walker ● 6591d

Just in from one of the canal carriers in answer to your queries Duncan:Hi Nigel, Trying to answer the question what to carry is quite difficult because other than fresh food with a limited shelf life we should be able to carry almost anything on the canal network. I started on the canal carrying lime juice and moved onto the river to carry grain and then aggregates. The sort of things we move now are muck away and construction materials, but we have also move food processing equipment for the Covent Garden Soup Company. The key is to be integrated into the supply chain that moves products around London. For this to work efficiently we need a good multi-modal system and the access places to the canal. For example Bulls Bridge close to the M4 and and the A 40 where it crosses the canal would be good western multi-modal interchange places for goods to be transfered from lorry to barge and barge to lorry. From either site in a day a barge could reach potential sites right through London as far as Limehouse and Bow Locks. It would take about 4 hrs to Paddington for example, time to make the return journey in the same day with 60 to 80 tonnes or the equivalent volume. If we look at the canal as relieving traffic congestion then the Thames and the canal provide 2 east-west routes right through London with connections to the Thames at Brentford, Limehouse and Bow Creek. Looking specifically at Brentford its potential is to provide a west London source or destination for traffic going east or west along the river. The canal being a much easier place to load and unload barges than the tidal river as Sainsbury is discovering. As for products the supermarkets could distribute to their stores to the west of London through a hub such as Brentford and send their recyclates back that way in similar fashion to Sainsbury's idea to distribute via Wandsworth. Construction and demolition waste from the west of London could go to places such as Bywaters at Bow Creek and McGrath's at Barking Creek for disposal. Recyclates such as cardboard and plastic could go in containers to Tilbury and other container wharves for export to China etc where they are recycled. It is difficult to know exactly what customers or the market might want to move by barge but without the facilities to get on and off the canal and the river then we know it will go by road. Hope that helps a bit. Regards Gerry

Nigel Moore ● 6591d

Can’t fault your perception Duncan, that analysis is exactly right. The single argument I have been having with BW for years, centres precisely on the points you make. There is a fundamental purpose behind BW’s existence, which is the preservation, maintenance and improvement of the canal system for the benefit of the nation. In the execution of that basic remit, they are enjoined by Government to act in a responsible and business-like manner, and seek to ‘maximise receipts’ whenever entering into contracts or disposing of property that does not consist of the ‘track’ itself or of infrastructure essential to its maintenance.Unfortunately, the pressures from Government to minimise the burden on the public purse have resulted in appointing people to high office who take a more strictly commercial view of the canal network as a resource than I believe is appropriate, with the result that achieving financial self-sufficiency has become the goal that over-rides consideration for the central purpose. It is highly doubtful that direct use of the canals could ever now pay for their upkeep, so BW concentrate on non-waterways uses to generate income – with property development the single most obvious avenue to explore. I would have fewer objections to that if the results added value to the network as it could, but in looking to maximise returns as interpreted by BW, the result is almost universally harmful.You are perfectly correct to say that considerations other than financial return to BW should hold sway, the tragedy is that it does not, and the uncertainty of budgeting when the ‘grant-in-aid’ can never be relied upon, only reinforces the attitude of upper management.The pity is the failure to recognise that, while the canals themselves will never generate the direct profits that they once did, the ancillary benefits that they bring to the nation are almost incalculable, whether those benefits be hard tourist cash or for less tangible amenity and environmental benefit. Those alone make preservation of the system vital and financially important, yet cannot be entered into the bean-counters’ books in support of BW’s worth to the Chancellor. Thus, the vicious cycle is perpetuated, that the system is compromised in the interest of the narrower balance sheet, and thus the value of that system becomes diminished in all respects as a consequence.Again on the theme of true costs vs book costs, you should look at some of the info out there on road costs compared to waterborne or rail costs. Europeans in particular as well as ourselves, are taking a harder, more penetrating look at what the real and related costs of road traffic entail, and the balance sheet there will reveal an hitherto distorted accountancy. The value of waterborne freight then begins to look more commercially desirable, even discounting the environmental pressures.Whoops! Getting carried away again and drifting off-topic. Your last paragraph deserves comment, but I’ll leave it at this for now, except to say that you should have a look at the BAAP draft and see how far Hounslow have now gone in recognition of your idea, and to remind everyone that a last (for now) opportunity of making suggestions for this will arise at the Area Monitoring Committee meeting this Thursday night.

Nigel Moore ● 6591d

Thanks for the information Nigel. I am getting a better picture. The Hackney 'Waste by Water Pilot scheme' at www.hackneywastebywater.com was very good. There is a great description, with photos of how the Multi-Mode Refuse Container Collection Vedhicles (MMRCVs)work. They seemed to have concluded that there is real potential for this mode of transport for waste.It sounds to me that a main reason why British Waterways is not too enthusiastic about freight transport, is that they can get a big and faster financial return from selling canalside developments. With freight transport they will get a smaller and slower return, from service revenues for providing the network to users. Also they will need to invest in the improvement and maintenance of the canal system, such as dredging, to a standard fit for commercial use.Surely the criteria for judging, if providing a freight network on the canal is viable and required, must include other than financial return to BW.In the meantime, the infrastructure is degrading, to a point where it may not be reclaimed. Even if a decision cannot be made soon, then the infrastructure should be preserved for its possible use in the future, when the environmental constraints on us all will almost certainly be higher. This could form part of some Hounslow Borough strategy.

Duncan Walker ● 6592d

Whew, where to start?Beginning with the Report you provided a link to, this was sadly a manipulated report that in its final stage put a dampener on the use of canals for freight, whatever the précis says. For example it has been proffered by BW at the Commerce Road Inquiry to establish just exactly that point – that canals offer opportunity for only niche markets, and Brentford specifically is useless.Fortunately we were able to bring along one of the consultants to the report, who was able to set the record straight in some measure. We were also able to bring along a couple of water-freight handlers to contradict some of the nonsense produced by the report.Then again, I quoted from the Phase 1 report (before BW took over from TfL as primary commissioners), to demonstrate that although it was intended to concentrate on the lock-free section of the canal system centred along the Paddington Arm, it included the Brentford area precisely because of its strategic importance!It’s a pity that you weren’t present at the last Area Monitoring Committee meeting, because I’d managed to persuade two of the witnesses to attend the meeting and present much the same material as they’d presented to the Inquiry. This was at the invitation of Jon Hardy and Ruth Cadbury, both of whom had attended the Inquiry when these people had given their evidence (they, Matt Harmer. Genevieve Hibbs and later Andrew Dakers have all also given evidence). Have a look at the minutes of that meeting anyway, (http://213.210.33.3/ieListDocuments.asp?CId=215&MId=3566&Ver=4&J=4), for a brief overview of the material presented. I’ll try and see whether one of them at least can be persuaded to also answer direct on this forum.Basically any non-time-sensitive market will benefit from water transport, though higher value goods will prove most sustainable for operators. As one of the contributors pointed out, whether a run is profitable or not has nothing to do with distance, numbers of locks and time taken – it has to do with whether the price payable for delivery allows for an acceptable profit. That’s not taking into account the ancilliary benefits on environmental grounds, nor the hidden comparitive costs of maintaining the road system and factoring in the concomitant costs.Waste disposal is an immediate and obvious benefit, that could tie in easily with existing Thames traffic. Extending Corey Environmental’s operations further upriver to us would be welcomed by the PLA, the operators and environmentalists. That itself would benefit Hounslow hugely, and assist it in meeting the new disposal of waste directives.Conal, while he was with BW, was an enthusiast for waterfreight within the area outside London wherein he was employed; however he has since departed that sphere and is regrettably though understandably under the circumstances, disinclined to have anything further to do with this. I wish this had not turned out the case, as he would doubtless have been in a marvellous position to address your questions as an expert. I haven’t started properly, but this has lengthened beyond my original intent, and others will be far better placed to give expert opinion. If I find the time, I’ll add a bit more.

Nigel Moore ● 6594d

Thanks Nigel, I’ll tune into the programme, if I miss it, it will probably be on the ‘Listen Again’ feature on the Radio4 website.What do you think is the best scope for commercial use of the West London Canal System? I suppose it depends on understanding what products today are best suited to the type of transport offered, with its slower movement, its fixed network, and available loading points and infrastructure.How could this commercial transport opportunity best help Brentford? New businesses and jobs? Revenue to the council?I found this report written in 2005 which you have probably seen (click on link): Reviving commercial traffic on West London's canals.

Duncan Walker ● 6594d

Further to the Home page plea for the public to attend the last day of the Inquiry, there will be a Radio 4 program going out on Tuesday 15th at 8pm dealing with Freight on the canals which will cover Commerce Road:http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/pip/r8b7c/GridlockedGerry Northam asks whether canals built in the 18th century can provide sustainable transport for the 21st. The government wants to get freight off roads and onto waterways wherever possible. But commercial barge owners say vital wharves are being sold off to property developers, and feel that British Waterways is not interested in freight. British Waterways vigorously defends its record.

Nigel Moore ● 6595d

For some more info on regenerating waterfreight here, there’s an interesting article produced by one of the witnesses at the Inquiry:http://www.britishwaterways-squanderingourinheritance.com/consult-article.php?articleNo=2&news_id=40

Nigel Moore ● 6671d

“Does all this mean that the eyesore that is Brentford will finally be cleaned up?” It doesn’t follow. In fact BW have threatened the Secretary of State that refusal of the Appeal means they would allow the site to lie derelict. One glimmer of hope is that new provisions relating to strategic employment locations, together with firm interest having been demonstrated in using the dock for freight transport, might just allow for Compulsory Purchase for regenerating appropriately to meet the Mayor’s targets in waste handling.As for this, Sth of the High St and other Brentford locations, have either of you applied to participate in the Council sponsored CAG workshop on Tues 27th?Glad you find all the boats add to the atmosphere Jorgen, we are hoping to increase the numbers actually moving around and through with the potential take up of this area for water borne freight use.

Nigel Moore ● 6673d

You're talking about the building south to the High Street? What's that got to do with Commerce Road? :)Interesting, on the image posted in the first post of this thread. There are almost no river boats. Last weekend i counted 35 boats, making such a nice atmosphere.

Jorgen Molna ● 6673d

I think some of the sturdier brick buildings on the south side would convert readily into excellent homes. With residents comes investment.

Colin Murphy ● 6674d

Yes, so does all this mean that the eyesore that is Brentford will finally be cleaned up?

Colin Murphy ● 6674d

Well, yesterday was simply splendid!No fewer than four of our councillors turned up to give evidence as to the public and Area Committee views on this development - Jon Hardy, Matt Harmer, Ruth Cadbury and Genevieve Hibbs.The day started with a superb video compiled by the Residents' Association of the Island development. That was followed by 'killer' evidence presented by expert professionals for the Regents Network, demonstrating the commercial viability and desirability of the covered docks for water-transport. This was totally at odds with the 'evidence'produced by BW's paid 'expert', and the Inspector showed great interest in his following probing and informed questions relating to that.The Inland Waterways Association did very well presenting the case for Heritage conservation; the Robin Grove rep. appeared, and so did Ian Moore as a resident of the Butts.As I told the Inspector, I felt a little redundant coming after all that, and he agreed that a considerable amount of interesting material had been submitted!A special thanks to all that responded.

Nigel Moore ● 6674d

Sorry about the legibility Sarah, kept it Low Res. to fit in easily.Better to reproduce here:TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990APPEAL BY: ISIS WATERSIDE REGENERATIONRE: LAND & BUILDING AT COMMERCE ROAD, BRENTFORD, MIDDLESEX, TW8 8LEProposed Development:1. Planning Application (as originally submitted): Demolition of existing buildings for a mixed use development including residential, commercial, community and leisure use, shops, financial services, restaurants, day centres and leisure facilities and associated car parking facilities. Retention of bus depot use or for possible alternative commercial uses (B1 business and B8 storage and distribution), public open space and car parking.2. Conservation Area Application: Demolition of existing structure overhanging part of the towpath into Grand Union Canal.As you are aware, there is a Public Inquiry currently sitting at Jury’s Inn Heathrow, Eastern Perimeter Road, Hatton Cross, Hounslow, Middlesex, TW6 2SR in relation to the above.FoI!owing direction from the Inspector, the Council, the appellant and the Rule 6 and third parties in attendance at the Inquiry conferred regarding the date for the Rule 6 and third parties to give their evidence, and the Inspector has now invited the Rule 6 and third parties to present their evidence to the Inquiry on the 20th February 2007. As such, if you consider your best interests would be served by giving evidence we invite you to do so on the 20thFebruary 2007.If you do wish to speak at the Inquiry I would be grateful if you would advise me of this and, in particular, your ability to attend on the 20th February 2007. If you wish to give evidence but are unable, for any reason, to attend on the 20th February 2007 please let me know if another date within the remaining sitting time of the Inquiry (being Friday 26th January 2007, Tuesday 30th January 2007 through Friday 2nd February 2007 and Tuesday 20th February 2007 through Friday 3rd February 2007) would be suitable so that the Inspector may allocate a time in the programme to hear your evidence. The Council is currently arranging for a DVD player to be made available on the 20th February 2007 to allow a third party to show their DVD, which forms part of their evidence. If you too require any specialised equipment please could you let me know as early as possible, to allow me to make arrangements, if indeed it is possible for me to do so.Finally, please note that the appellant has requested that you make available to the Inquiry a written note of what you intend to say, before you give your evidence. This is notwithstanding the fact that you / the organisation you represent may have already submitted a Rule 6 Statement of Case or Proof of Evidence. As such, can you please ensure that you make 10 copies available to the Inquiry in good time for the appellant’s Counsel and agents to review your note. I would suggest that you post:• One copy (minimum) to the appellant care of Mr Mark Gibney at Hepher Dixon, Bridewell Gate, 9 Bridewell Place, London EC4V 6AW;• One copy (minimum) to myself: and• Eight copies to the Planning Inspectorate, Planning Inspectorate, 4/04 Kite Wing, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BSI 6PNno later than Wednesday 7th February 2007 to allow sufficient time for the parties to review it.I look forward to hearing from you in relation to your availability to give evidence on the 20th February 2007.If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours faithfullyHelen Farquharfor Director of Legal Services

Nigel Moore ● 6694d

Yesterday we were with a group of 21 ramblers on an 8 mile linear walk via Brentham Manor, Pitshanger Park, Brent Lodge Park, the Wharncliffe Viaduct (stunning as always) and joined the Canal at Hanwell lock.We then carried on along the canal side to Brentford, along the High Street using the Thames river path (some of which is actually along the river) to Kew Bridge.  The photographs Jim Lawes and Nigel Moore have been posting of the land up for development in Brentford came to life - along with the issues they have been raising.The weather was delightful; the parks full of Spring promises and everyone was very friendly.What always surprises me – is the complete lack of activity on the canal.  The water was mill pond still, almost stagnant looking in places; and the silt on the bottom would make it difficult to navigate certain points.  The busy roads above and the work at the refuse depot filled the air with noise taking over from conversation and bird song – and even though there was a bright blue sky and it was warm and sunny there were few people on the tow path and nothing on the water.As we went past Hanwell lock there was a huge pile of logs and debris silting up the water – some asked if a boat could navigate the lock – but the vandalism of neglect was hanging in the air even here and was probably influencing our interpretation of what we were all seeing along this part of the walk.Why hasn’t the potential for developing the use of the canal been exploited?  What about the potential amenity for the local community and London itself?  What about the tourism value of taking boats from Brentford along the Grand Union (doesn’t the name of the canal even, churn a recognition of past achievements?)  What about those environmental policies supposed to reduce this that and the other – how do they ‘work’ with the canal sitting inactive and the roads taking the load?I tripped across this earlierhttp://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/planning_decisions/strategic_dev/2004/dec0804/commerce_road_report.pdf It appears to gloss over the missed potential for exploiting the best use of the canal through this development and talks about the site as if it were a derelict shed on some old block of land – which being considered ‘brown field’ should sway the reader to agreeing to the development, just because.What is missing is the wording describing the rarity of this site and the invaluable potential to pull together other employment and environmental policies, just a few miles from the centre of London.When commenting on the planning applications around here to extend the three bad semis into 7/8 bed + bungalows I have repeatedly asked that an environmental ‘consideration’ be added to each planning application – a proper box, to be written in, not ticked.Even in these ‘enlightened’ days of global warming, it still hasn’t happened.  What would the environmentalists make of this site, and the canal itself (the two cannot be separated) do you think?

Sarah Felstead ● 6694d

Sorry, Nigel, I can't read the letter!  Can you or Jim do some tweaking?

Sarah Felstead ● 6694d

Nigel Moore ● 6696d

It occurs that it is a complete nonsense to allow Brentford to become a multi high rise area opening onto the Thames and canals because ‘there is little to conserve’ due to neglect by the owners of the land.  There is an opportunity to build back into Brentford, the heart of the community which has been torn apart by the vandalism of neglect.I would love to see old apprentice style and traditional workshops and businesses being given first chance within the development particularly for the skilling of our children and the community of the future.  One of the problems youngsters have these days is the vision of what they can do when leaving school and the loss of apprentice and skill based jobs.  I have previously spoken about my son and his carving course run in Richmond.  Initially the boys went to a Saturday woodwork course at Parkshot.  I had this notion that they should all be able to put up shelves and or whittle pieces of driftwood when wandering along a beach (probably illegal these days!).One son was particularly happy working with wood, so we asked if he could move on to the adult woodcarving course, in the evenings.  He ended up being the youngest student (at 14) working with the most senior teacher (in his 80’s).  Seeing his first piece - a sit up rabbit carved from a square block of wood, was choking.  He later went on to be taught by a Czech teacher whose skill in his homeland had been developed as a puppeteer, carving marionettes.  Son’s first attempt using the special light wood of a marionette was to carve the most perfect pear – you could pick it up thinking it were a pear.  He was 15 or so at the time.The affect on a number of his friends was just as incredible – they all wanted to be carpenters.  Children who would not have even heard the word ‘university’ spoken at home had a fair idea that this was something they could do, and wanted to do.  One of them has gone on to study as a carpenter (college in Richmond and apprenticeship at a small workshop and he is positively thriving).Son has not gone on to carpentry but is taking engineering based subjects at University.  He has developed skills from visualising the rabbit inside the block of  wood to the end product and is very capable of putting up the shelves and doing any whittling he might put his mind to do…I went with a local primary school to the Tower of London and my group was stood in the queue going into the Crown jewels, watching the film of the coronation.  When a mace was shown, I said ‘somebody made that’ – they were incredulous!  I kept hearing the words repeated throughout the day – most products are bought, not made, aren’t they?Boatyards in Brentford?  What a marvellous opportunity to carry on the trades of the past and not kill them off for the future.  What a marvellous opportunity to skill our youngsters, within our community!

Sarah Felstead ● 6700d

To answer Audrey, car parking for an extra 900 vehicles is planned for under the apartment blocks. Using Paul’s figures, that means adding to the High St congestion by almost a third, all using the one awkward small intersection at the east end of the bridge.To answer Colin – of course. Twickenham Plating was boarded up yesterday: While workmen were busy this morning continuing towards Catherine Wheel Road:All of the 3 dozen leases affecting the remaining properties are short term, and will not be renewed. I suspect that within 6 months the only occupants of anywhere south of the High St will be those in the few pockets of privately owned parcels. British Waterways continues to campaign with the Planning Dept to have our boatyard declared non-essential, and while professing full support for their own, are quite prepared in the long term to have its operation endangered by surrounding it with riverside residential building.One can only hope that the Council will take the ISIS expert’s warning, and reconsider the urging of English Heritage that the whole environs be embraced within the Conservation Area. This does not mean that large parts could not be demolished, it means that consent would be necessary, so that due consideration could be given to what needs preserving.As Neil has noted, the outcome of the Commerce Road Appeal is intimately linked with the High St scenario, so the more letters of protest that can be sent into the Inquiry demonstrating the community’s desire to retain the character and heritage of this edge of the basin above the Gauging Lock, the more hope of assisting the Council to direct the way South of the High Street progresses.The argument most forcibly presented by ISIS thus far, is that because so little is left, that little is not worth keeping. Beware of the same arguments being applied here, -they most certainly will be.

Nigel Moore ● 6700d

A very good point Audrey let alone the estimated 3000 plus cars that will be using Brentford High St each day.

Paul Fisher ● 6701d

What about parking?

Audrey Walton ● 6701d

Is the dereliction of the south side with that objective in mind?

Colin Murphy ● 6701d

Welcome, Barry! Sorry, I couldn't resist it.

Colin Murphy ● 6701d

Another day, another expert. This one came on my boat trip, and that proved useful for a couple of points I had to make.Some nice models on display, a simple general view:And a more detailed one:Dr Filmer-Sankey for the Appellant was gratifyingly concerned that the conservation area be reviewed by the Council, to extend its area to include the boatyards below the High Street. Too late for Commerce Road, but not too late for Sth of the High Street!

Nigel Moore ● 6701d

Wednesday and the ISIS appeal carries on, with experts telling us why the deliberate dereliction of the site means it’s no longer worthy of inclusion in any conservation or other such designation. The message appears to be: forget any preservation rules, you only need to run the area down and you’ll get what you want.Whether the Inspector recognises this cynicism for what it is, we’ll just have to wait and see. The Council’s barrister is proving to be remarkably informed and penetrating on questions relating to the canal.

Nigel Moore ● 6702d

Jorgen...you really have missed the point,haven't you.It's not that objectors are'afraid of anything new'they just don't particularly want ugly,overbearing,massive structures looming over the skyline ad infinatum.Do you understand now or should I WRITE IT IN BIG LETTERS FOR YOU?

Keith Iddon ● 6705d

Some good points there.I'm not a fan of wrapping up kids in bubbleplast, but there need to be a certain level of safety.I live on the Lock myself. My wife and me are probably the only residents there without a car and probably the only ones to use local shops for shopping. We love living there though.We don't see many kids around.

Jorgen Molna ● 6705d

Indeed :)They are also afraid of anything new and god forbid changes close to their own house! Oh, there is the nimby definition :)

Jorgen Molna ● 6705d

I was in Birmingham just after the New Year and was fascinated by a similar case. The Mailbox has been developed around a Canalside location - full of trendy eating places / new BBC studios and offices etc. It is yards from the Gas Street Basin which proclaimed itself as the hub of the national waterways where the Worcester and Birmingham Canal met the Birmingham Mainline (and on to Grand Union etc.)However, one corner of the Mailbox has a glorified builders hoarding daubed with placards stating "The Cube is coming".http://www.thecubeiscoming.com/ The Cube is apparently a slab-sided concrete and glass construction that seems to have got planning permission on the grounds that it is big enough to "make a statement" (rather like the  London Gherkin - but not as nice a shape). The site is currently occupied by  some honest Victorian buildings with the sign "Branagh's Rubber and Gasket Works" and according to the Mailbox security guys, the occupiers don't want to sell. The Compulsory Purchase Order hearing starts next week , I think.It seemed sad to me to lose the heritage connection to the canal and swamp it with new stuff all the same......

Tim Henderson ● 6706d

The two areas linked as they are, I don’t want to deflect the topic onto south of the High Street, which as Neil has noted is dealt with comprehensively elsewhere. To learn more about what’s happening with this, keep abreast with the relatively new project for determining what should happen at www.brentfordhighstreet.co.uk This details and updates the community planning process, and it is promised that the majority land owner will attend the next meeting.Meanwhile the Inquiry into Commerce Rd continues next Tuesday.

Nigel Moore ● 6706d

If you do a search you will finf some threads on the South Side. The developer is awaiting the outcome of the Commerce Rd enquiry before he puts forward his proposal.

Neil Chippendale ● 6707d

kind of an add on to commerce road, but...    does anyone know of any movement on the proposed and now i think sold on development, south of the high street? catherine wheel lane, brent way etc? who are the new developers?

Jamie Halliday ● 6707d

The problem with this like so many other new developments in Brentford is that they contradict the word 'Development'.Most new developments have impeded the development of a community and in particular, family community.Most are buy to lets, many are for occasional use by businessmen and women, Some are even used to house big city earners mistresses and suchlike.But barely a thread exists of community or cohesiveness that makes bits of old Brentford a half decent place to live.The Riverside developments have 3 and 4 room apartments but there is nowhere for children to play safely. Water and children don't mix terribly well.Brentford has a poor infrastructure for families. A town divided into two by the A4, Run down recreational facilities and exclusive facilites for those who can afford at one end and exclusive facilities held by the underclass who are hostile to all but their own.What is disappearing fast are versatile small business work units. With the Mayor and Government stating that local employment is of paramount importance to a future local economy, how can overloading a traditional industrial area with residents with no means of supporting them be logical.? Small businesses are being priced out of the whole borough and treated with contempt.What if Glaxo, Sky and any other multi-nationals decide to up and away? It could easily and may well happen.A balance needs to exist and Commerce road needs to remain for the purpose of it's name. -For Commerce.

Michael Brandt ● 6707d

Troll AlertThere are some individuals out there who don't just enjoy winding up people on newsgroups and bulletin boards - it's their sad lifestyle choice! Using every known disruptive trick in the book, these troublesome types don't go out to the pub, meet members of the opposite sex or enjoy life. They spend their time hunched over their computers trolling.

Ian Roberts ● 6707d

Thanks, I'm very familiar with Listed buildings.Doesn't mean I agree with all of them though, especially not in this case where there is an opportunity for it to be replaced with a great new developement providing more living space and life into Brentford.

Jorgen Molna ● 6707d

For long-time residents of Brentford, the issues are how far any new projects will further ruin the character of a town they have grown up in and treasure for the living links to the past.For newcomers, the question will be why exactly they chose to come here. Many that I have spoken to have declared that they did so because they valued the waterfront, whether Thames or canal, and are intrigued by a history that overshadows most of its neighbours.Much of the vital sense of continuity has been obscured by previous well-meant efforts at regeneration, yet the opportunity still exists for new schemes to bring modern improvements while restoring the clarity and accessibility of Brentford’s history.The importance of retaining this site for industrial employment with potential for greater commercial use of its waterside facilities for lessening the dependence on a congested road system, has been recognised with the Council’s refusal of the ISIS scheme.Nearly a thousand extra cars would be trying to access the High Street every day from the sole road junction with the High Street, and while the blurb accompanying the proposal trumpets the promotion of family housing, the reality as highlighted by the Planning Inspector’s questioning on Tuesday, is that no practical provision for such exists.An overwhelming majority of vocal residents have decried the Commerce Road scheme for its ruthless discarding of all such considerations in the usual cynical attempt to extract the maximum financial returns from an overcrowded development.There is much to be improved upon in this area as Jorgen has observed, not least the way the factories and warehouses have turned their back on the canal in the past few decades and used the towpath boundary for junk that they would not wish to be on public display. This needs to be reversed. As for the dereliction, that is the result of enforced eviction of all businesses over the years, to be used as blackmail to force the Council to approve anything as being better than a continuation of Brentford’s “planning blight”.The same process is being accelerated south of the High Street, and boardings are going up everywhere as short term leases expire and are not renewed.Only if prospective developers can be made to see that failing to take account of the local voice can be costly and counter-productive, will they start from a fresh standpoint and help to deliver what the community needs. It worked with the Kew Bridge site, I know of no such intensive consultation as that which St George have now embarked upon, following defeat at the last Inquiry.As a community, we have the chance to follow up that success. We are not against development and regeneration, it’s simply that no one knows better what the community needs and wants in terms of that, than the community already living here. In this instance, our newest residents have proved, perhaps unexpectedly, the most intense and informed of supporters.Obviously there will always be dissenting views; if any feel strongly that ISIS should be permitted to go ahead, then the same opportunity to be heard presents itself.

Nigel Moore ● 6708d

JorgenAt the bottom end of Commerce Rd is a small group of Art Deco buildings. All over London buildings such as these are "Listed". Those in Commerce Rd will get pulled down and Brentford loses more of its industrial heritage. The same with that over hanging structure along the canal. Its one of the few remains from the days when the canal was a major source of work for the area.15 storey blocks would dominate the area and over shadow the canal. These proposals are not right for Brentford and as Nigel says would set precedents for any South Side Developments. I'm sure the landholders of the south side are just waiting for the public enquiry to end and then they can put in there applications based on what has happened on the Commerce Rd side.

Neil Chippendale ● 6708d

It's the 'I'm a big fan of high rises and would like to see more in this area' comment that made me think you must be on some kind of medication. Silly me...

Keith Iddon ● 6708d

Think you got him there Keith. After all what is the point of putting up cogent arguments against the views of someone who has a different opinion from you when you can resort to abuse.Does anyone have a feel for the occupancy of the newer units. When I go past I see very few lights on at night time which raises the suspicion a lot of them have been purchased on a speculative basis off-plan. I know this is really a commercial issue rather than a planning one but would it be possible to argue against new development on the basis of the social cost of having lots of unoccupied units?

Dan Evans ● 6708d

I just thought I could smell the dead rat on the canal bank ... or maybe it was something fishy?:-)

Sarah Felstead ● 6708d

Excuse me?You don't give much reason for giving such a silly comment.You'd rather have what's currently on the site?I think we got a few NIMBYs here ;-)

Jorgen Molna ● 6708d

Keep taking the tablets Jorgen...

Keith Iddon ● 6709d

I thought we had already proved that high-rise dwellings and England do not work, that’s why they are pulling them down in many areas of London ;o)

Paul Allen ● 6709d

ooooh, 'eck!;-)

Sarah Felstead ● 6709d

Looks great.I live on Brentford Lock. The area between Commerce Road and the canal is today in horrible shape and really needs to be cleaned up to take advantage of the canal front. Especially the over-hanging building in the Glaxo direction is something I think all would like to se gone. There are many people walking the canal road every day, but are disgusted by this strech.Those developments look pretty good for this area, complementing the Island developments well. Are there any images of the 15-storey towers as well? I'm a big fan of skyscrapers and would love more high-rises in this area.I hope this project goes through without too much problems.

Jorgen Molna ● 6709d