Forum Topic

It's good to see a degree of thought going into this. I hope the horrors of urban design that are spattered throughout the country are taken on board and avoided.There's a fair few in this borough alone.Ealing seems to have led the way with the recent creation of a Heritage quarter.This was an idea by a local resident to initially try and retain the districts Victorian lamposts,. Ealing is the last town to have a fully intact district full of these.The same type of which, adorned Brentford and many were sold to Ealing when Brentford and Chiswick renewed with concrete lamposts in the 1950's.The Heritage quarter is a halfway conservation area without the planning restrictions or the snob factor. The brief is to enhance the appearance of the streetscene in a style that reflects and compliments the general aesthetic ambience. This encapsulates Northfields, Little Ealing and South Ealing as far as Pitshanger Manor and Lammas and Walpole Parks.  The Edwardian street furniture will be retained, reinstated or renovated and painted in the original colours, Park railings etc. of the appropriate style will be reinstated and the lamposts retained but upgraded to meet safety specs.It's easy for this district as it is well looked after by it's residents although not for some time by L B Ealing. A period has been picked of which exists a record of how good it once looked and that will be the focus.It's not so easy for Brentford. Unlike Southern Ealing which is almost purely residential and 19th/20th century. Brentford was a grimy industrial town built over a much longer period. Much is lost right down to it's original lamp posts.But thanks to projects like Ealing's and a few in other boroughs, ways and solutions are being found to mix the best of the past with the present.Colour schemes, lamposts and lights, benches and trees all play a part and off the shelf fob offs should not be the only choices.I missed the exhibition but hope that many also think similarly over this most historic of towns.

Michael Brandt ● 6257d

dear sir.As the saga of brentford redevelopment continues so does the general delapidation of the existing buildings,infrastructure and community spirit.How can you create a positive outlook for local companies and people by removing the existing people to make way for others whose only real initial contribution will be a purchase of a somewhat expensive concrete carbuncle on south side, that may deprive local shop owners on north side and residents of their basic right to sunlight?Once again these local people will be left in the dark and may decide to leave(or forcibly evicted) this area for friendlier less expensive area,THUS PROVIDING THE SO CALLED DEVELOPERS WITH EVEN MORE PROPERTY TO LAY WASTE.Considering the impact of global warming it seems that still the developers will build monstrous buildings on existing flood plains that are so wasteful of energy it seems almost pointless.Brentford as 1 example has so much potential to embrace the green issues and utilise natures power now.Yet the number 1 reason why the big private developers donot is because they say it is to expensive.Brentford has become a dump and the only thing going for it @ present is the remaining local long established independant retailers and people.I am a local person who wants to see Brentford embrace the green issues not run away from them.All i have seen so far is concrete and evictions,when what i would love to see is ideas that enhance not denegrate.Without clean air & water we as the 4th or 5th richest nation on earth will suffer the embarrasment of not looking after our resources properly in many health related ways.We take for granted such luxuries now but in the future we indeed wont.I have ideas that will benefit our local communitys & as a nation make us truly efficient that would involve science & engineering.These ideas have been around for along time but we are still slow in utilising them,ONCE AGAIN.

Markus Mason ● 6506d

Andrew, I took the point of not regarding this visual as being definitive, and obviously I recognise that everyone will have a different interpretation of a good marriage between local and developer aspirations. My post reflects my own, very personal, instinctive reaction to the visual, from which I could see the potential dangers in moving from accepted principle to suggested practise.As you know, I am attracted to the idea of formulating a plastic rendition of a pragmatic design; this has simply made me more cautious about it. I wonder whether a collection of alternatives might not be better, if we must have one?“A mistake mixing the two objectives”? Perhaps. I see both Chris’s view and your own. The visual is certainly provocative, and maybe that is what’s needed to elicit a greater degree of feedback from the public. While I shall of course, make some specific observations to Chris and yourself time permitting, I have some concerns that relate to the observations in your last paragraph.The BAAP is the best and most clear of all those I’ve seen, and the Visioning Project’s collation and analysis of material is excellent. Nonetheless I agree, “everyone will read what they want to out of the text”. But that is a situation that will always obtain, regardless of the precision of the wording, and it is far easier, and probably preferable, to make a communal critique of someone else’s interpretation than to arrive at one ourselves. There must be a danger inherent in a small steering group coming up with an interpretation, in that, for precisely the reason you identify, it can never be representative of the wider resource of contributors?Don’t get me wrong, I understand and concur with your rationale, I think it needful however to flag up a concern. I would hope, and know that the opportunity will be presented for this, that others will sketch out their own ideas based on the ‘Vision’, as you, Chris and I have done.Forgive me if I’m floundering a bit here, trying to enunciate clearly the core of my concern. I’m wondering perhaps if it cannot be characterised best as a concern that a magnificent body of work could become necessarily limited by this reduction into graphic form.

Nigel Moore ● 6658d

Duncan - Here's my take on the drivers you mention (a priority to maximise a financial return; wanting a beacon development for image; pressure from LBH)... I would agree with Nigel that financial return is going to be the top priority, as with any company.  However as we try and get across in the community vision report there is a strong correlation between return on investment and a high quality (beacon) scheme that responds to local needs.  If the design is ill conceived and the retail space sits empty for example as foot fall doesnt increase, then it is not going to be easy for Ballymore (or anyone else) to manage or sell on.Pressure from the council is important in all schemes.  I don't think any developers particularly delight at the cost and delay of going to public inquiry.  However pressure from the GLA and central gov't planning policy is also a consideration for developers and the council.Nigel - As I said yesterday in an email to the Steering Group mailing list don’t get too wedded to this visual – it is not intended to be a final solution or 100% accurate.  However it does give an indication of how a fairly high density development could work around the historical yards and buildings (we know from our economic study of the BTC Ltd scheme the need for more housing if a scheme is going to be viable).  There are practical issues around boatyard operation that will need to be worked through in more detail (and that could of course lead to refinement of this illustrative visual).  However this visual does clearly indicate the desire to have three operating boatyards in the area and reflects both discussions at the High Street urban design workshop and other recommendations in the report.Considered with the map of underground car parking in the first draft of the Community Vision report (http://www.openplans.org/projects/brentfordhighstreet/brentford-high-street-the-community-vision/brentford-high-street-the-community-vision-may-2007-draft.pdf ) a more complete sense of practicalities/complexities of any viable scheme emerge.I must say I disagree with you that this is "truly ghastly".  The next level of design detail - how blocks are broken up to develop an interesting character, street scene and texture - will be vitally important.  For that turn to the many photos in the existing draft of the report (I have since received more photos for inclusion in the next draft).This drawing is only really meant to give an indication of *massing* around the yards and historic buildings, which are the major constraints of the community vision.Chris' orignal plan was to leave a flat roofline (as this drawing was simply to indicate massing) but I felt some *indication* of a livelier roofline would give the illustration more life.  Perhaps a mistake mixing the two objectives.Perhaps you could feedback specific changes/ammendments to this illustration to Chris and I directly in the next few days so this can be developed a bit further ahead of the next steering group meeting?I think the problem with not going down this route of doing some work on visualisation (as this debate illustrates) is that everyone will read what they want to out of the text of the BAAP and Community Vision document.Best, Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6658d

As to the overall document – a monumental achievement well deserving of congratulations. I do have some serious reservations over the suggestions on flood plain resolutions.As to the visual attempt to demonstrate a viable realisation of the document’s content, - truly ghastly.I now understand more clearly the views of those who suggested that we ought not to be attempting to do the developers’ work for them. This has turned out to be a step too far, and predominantly because of the attempt to create a ‘commercially realistic’ scheme that takes as a baseline the over-inflated price paid for the site then tries to accommodate as much as possible of the community vision into it.No reflection on Chris, but the result demonstrates the awful incompatibility between the vision the developer had to have when purchasing, and the vision held by the community. My immediate response is to say let the community vision stand as documented, and let the developer attempt to resolve his own problems in rising to the challenge of meeting it.And why, might I ask, does the ‘community vision’ as drawn, no longer contain an operable boatyard?Duncan – you have acutely listed the ‘drivers’ in correct order; the gaps between them will be large, the gaps between 2 & 3 the largest. The first is a natural given. The second is less likely if only because Ballymore’s ‘flagships’ are centred in the east end. That’s not to say that they will not be looking, in any of their developments, to produce something they can be proud of in their own lights. For an idea of their style visit http://www.ballymore.co.uk/site/ba_frameset.php  (for the Pan Peninsula, docklands development).For an idea of their target market (wealthy singles) see http://www.ballymore.co.uk/site/ba_print.php?press_id=69 http://www.ballymore.co.uk/file_uploaded/bally_press_release_83.pdf From the above, you may learn sufficient to answer your own question as to the likelihood of them coming up with a design solution matching our requirements.Having recognised that however, the Council's position has now clarified and strengthened, and no developer can afford to dismiss the results of several years public consultation. The draft BAAP contains also, at least two references to this Community Vision project as a resource of which any developer must take cognisance.Tonight's the night if you wish to add your bit at the IBAC monitoring meeting.

Nigel Moore ● 6658d

Message sent on behalf of Denis Browne Chairman of Brentford Community Council Planning ConsultativeCommittee:My own first thoughs are:Design is eclectic we need variety and the variety should come often and in small bites. We do not want to loose the design reflecting a single frontage by uniting several plots for uniformity.The High Street should be mixed height 3 floor predominating. There may be a case for setting back the section of the High Street where the Council flats are up for the chop.This has been suggested as a location for Watermans giving more contrast.The pictures of the Lanes Brighton are the most helpful. They show small lock up shops with housing/offices above. Very poor servicing. ? At night ? off the High St.  Mostly selling small objects like jewellry. It is all to do with small scale closeness and variety.There is scope for really contemporary design using solar gain techniques, roof gardens etc but always contrasting with more traditional forms.If this is to be a Conservation Area there will be no outline application and only a diagramatic master plan. Each phase should respond to real need and later phases should learn from that xperience.The Brentford Community Council discussed the new designs now being prepared for the Scottish Widows site by Kew Bridge after the first scheme was rejected on appeal.The question posed was whether a design seeking to minimise its impact by dividing the building up into several parts expressed as pastiche of former styles was to be preferred,Or, whether a contemporary building would be more suitable on this very conspicuous site.Your views are welcomed.Denis Browne, Chairman, Planning Consultative Committee Brentford Community Council.browne_partnership@hotmail.com

Hazel Dakers ● 6696d

It's an interesting document. I'm not so sure that most of the buildings in the "What makes these contemporary designs fit in" section actually fit in. In fact the bright red brick building on page 33 reminds me of the horrid building opposite the county court on the high street in Brentford. Sensitivity to the tone of the materials used really makes a difference (as Hazel Dakers pointed out). Page 35 has a building that does sit it because of the material used rather than the architecture. I think this should be a key factor for the development of Brentford. I'm new to the area and the first thing that struck me about the buildings on the high street (on the riverside side between Catharine wheel rd and Augustus close) was what wonderful buildings. It’s a shame the shopkeepers have been allowed to ruin the feel of the street with shabby facades . I'm going to ignore the architecture (If you can call it that) that's on the opposite side of the street. If the only thing that was done was mirror the original building that are in main shopping area of the high st the whole area would be improved ten fold.  You could then introduce contemporary street furniture for a more chic feel to the place.  I’m also not sure that the Staiths south bank development (In the doc)  should be held up as an example of what should be done in Brentford. I should say that I lived next door to it in Dunston and have friends who own one of the houses. The development, although nice to look at in isolation, does not really say anything about the area of Dunston or its past and would probably be more at home in Sweden.  It does not have older buildings to sit next and is free from the problems which that can bring.  Yes there were queues for the houses but that had more to do with the housing market in the north east at the time than anything else.  As an aside I also know a few people that have moved out of the Dunston riverside developments back into the Victorian houses nearby because of the quality of the houses and the room’s sizes.  I also love the cobbles on dock road I think they really give a warm feeling to a road and they also double up as natural speed bumps. I understand the problems for elderly people crossing a cobbled street however you can create smooth crossing areas that would solve this. An example of this that springs to mind is on the royal mile in Edinburgh.I would be careful of using Poundbury as an example of good style. I won’t argue with Tim Henderson over the materials I think they are top notch and if Brentford was rebuild with the same standard we’d all be happy BUT the style of some areas of the development are at best confused and in some cases spill over into the farcical the New Market-Hall is a wee bit out of place for the area don’t you think.  Ok guys it’s my first post on here … try not to be too harsh 

Sandy Heslop ● 6699d