Forum Topic

23rd June Eviction Day for many...South of the High Street

Wakey, wakey!!!!There is a danger that buildings South of the High Street (SOTHS) (that maybe we'd like to see KEPT ) that need protection for future renovation could be raided and have various internal fittings removed once evictions start to take effect next week. The word "Firestones" comes to mind. Does it for YOU!!?? You will have seen the fencing off of many properties SOTHS, as the present owners of the land accelerate taking possession..hoping for a nice little earner no doubt from the future development!!   The barricaded buildings are being kept under observation by teams of security guards who patrol the area...but are they totally trustworthy? Are their mates on the way to start extracting goodies? The future for Brentford High Street and SOTHS is being considered in high places. Reports have been drawn up, "some ground breaking ideas" are being published …see High Street Newsletter issue No 3 June 07 for starters.) At the Civic Centre a webcam recording of the Executive Council Meeting of 5th June saw Cllr Barbara Reid outline the Brentford Report that was in her possession.  Cllr Andrew Dakers and his colleagues seem to have undertaken a massive study of the whole subject..and have produced very commendable and extensive reports themselves and have gather around them many consultative groups. Very well done to Andrew. The question of whether the area SOTHS should become a  Conservation Area  was raised at that Council meeting and at the local Isleworth and Brentford Area Meeting..but the matter seems to be on hold...although a CA could be quickly considered and voted on prior to demolitions and developement..if need be…according to the webcam broadcast. However a most urgent aspect of the whole survival of several heritage gems SOTHS..is to safeguard them from scrap merchants and the like..who are probably known by those securing the properties.  Apparently it is the Barrymore Group who are this fortnight actively evicting many tenants...and I don't suppose they will be too bothered if certain buildings get damaged or assaulted in any way..as they probably would prefer to see the lot all knocked down in any case!! Buildings bashed in..or with features removed..behind our backs..would not worry the the landlords..you can be sure!! Systematic pillaging from the empty buildings by vandals and plunderers who make off with metals and antique fittings to make a quick buck must not start..although I gather that it has already recently happened in Catherine Wheel Road. Many of us want to save some of the heritage. There are scalleywags out there who couldn't care tuppence!In some ways Ballymore can do what they like behind those barracades.....and if the worst happens..we will have just sat and watched. At least if SOTHS was designated a  Conservation Area soonest..there is a chance that some of our local treasures can be saved...and the "in the know" scalleywags could be kept at bay. At present there is no guarantee.

Jim Lawes ● 6618d68 Comments

Thanks Sarah. The irony of the situation at present, is that it is British Waterways who are proving the most recalcitrant opposition.Their attitude, though incomprehensible as to motive, is, from the wording of the first email, very clear. Their smug gratification at the eviction news is tempered only by consideration of how they will cope with the 'fall out' from the turfing out of nine boats. Where was the concern as to the fact, and as to what they could do to help those boats? Their concern was solely for their PR image.All they did was to first wait and see how the boats would disperse of their own accord, then to move in after a few weeks to threaten seizure of the half dozen still remaining in my care. When I succeeded in getting a stay of execution on that, they tried alternative moves to get the boats away, but more of that later.

Nigel Moore ● 6274d

Puh-leese!  You ask too much of a gal.Back to Nigel (changing the subject) good luck with your ongoing fight, from all of us here.  :-)

Sarah Felstead ● 6274d

I have so, but the question is my dear girl ..... which one are you??? :o)

Phil Andrews ● 6274d

"We have the political obsessives (I regret that I must often the impression of falling into that category), the political support acts (uncharitably referred to by some satirists as "Me Too!"), the referees, "neutrals" of varying degrees of neutrality, the analysts, the "let's change the subject to subject to something I am more interested in" brigade, the "you talking about politics is putting me off even though I never post anyway" brigade, the informatives, the reflective thinkers, the over-65s let loose with a dangerous new toy (often fascinating, but in other cases the cyber equivalent of the Sunday driver), the pluggers of good causes, the surreptitious advertisers of their own causes, the passers-through, the voyeurs and the plain mental."Phil - you 'so have' been wanting to find somewhere to post that, haven't you!  :-)

Sarah Felstead ● 6274d

I would have found that last post more interesting (or at least more entertaining), if you had lumped names from participants into those categories of yours, but that would of course, be inadvisable. Perhaps on another thread we could have voluntary registration according to type?The point you make is of course correct, anyone could tot up the numbers of different names to give statistics on the number. What is more significant, which the person commentating missed out on, is the rather higher number who read the Forum without ever contributing.As I write this, I see the number of visitors shown scrolling along the bottom being given as 15. When the 1500 plus members logging in at various times are taken into consideration, a far wider picture emerges.

Nigel Moore ● 6274d

Only under certain circumstances!But of course, you know and I know that we have more than five people operating on this forum, even if I do sometimes suspect that the number of names does sometimes exceed the number of actual participants, especially on the political threads.We have the political obsessives (I regret that I must often the impression of falling into that category), the political support acts (uncharitably referred to by some satirists as "Me Too!"), the referees, "neutrals" of varying degrees of neutrality, the analysts, the "let's change the subject to subject to something I am more interested in" brigade, the "you talking about politics is putting me off even though I never post anyway" brigade, the informatives, the reflective thinkers, the over-65s let loose with a dangerous new toy (often fascinating, but in other cases the cyber equivalent of the Sunday driver), the pluggers of good causes, the surreptitious advertisers of their own causes, the passers-through, the voyeurs and the plain mental.Apologies if I've left anybody out but this must add up to more than five, shurely?

Phil Andrews ● 6274d

Phil, I find that Confucian wisdom can be as profoundly obscure as a Delphic oracle. Are you suggesting that if the 5 Forum participants were all Area Committee members, then it might be important after all?If so, can we please have a few more of them?

Nigel Moore ● 6274d

Well said Phil and I would have thought that the comments made would annoy the other seven Councillors as well.

Paul Fisher ● 6274d

Confucius say: "Only five people is nearly half an Area Committee!"

Phil Andrews ● 6274d

You're right Neil – it is most interesting! The fact that Eugene Baston (since departed) could quote from Geronimo's updating reports to him, makes BW's claims to have nothing to do with it rather futile.What makes the email even more interesting, is the context in which they have been chummy. The 'acquisition of Castlemill in Oxford', for those who do not know, was all about the notorious debacle over BW's boatyard there. They wanted millions for the site for housing development; the Council refused permission because there was no provision made for replacing the boatyard with equivalent facilities nearby; BW and their prospective purchaser Bellway Homes appealed, and lost comprehensively.That's the point at which they found 'Spring' to be willing to try the whole thing on, so sold to them. (Thankfully 'Spring' have proved no more successful in their proposals than BW, for the same reasons, but meanwhile of course, the boatyard remains derelict and boarded up).Mr Baston, as 'External Relations Manager', was concerned solely with the publicity fall-out, and at their next board meeting, Robin Evans the Chief Executive, congratulated hinself with the observation that BW had succeeded in limiting the exposure to a few national dailies!All that pain, lost goodwill and vast expenditure - and the end result is a vacant boarded up boatyard on the one hand, with BW probably having little change left at the end of it all, on the other.They have even less excuse for treating Ridgeways so shabbily, because if all they and 'Geronimo' say is true, then BW never stood to gain any financial advantage anyway!

Nigel Moore ● 6274d

Thanks Nigel,Its nice to feel unimpottant. How must the Cllrs feel.Interesting about the close relationship between some at BW and Geronimo

Neil Chippendale ● 6275d

Hard to believe this much time has gone by!While everything appears dead to the passers by, I have been quite as busy as ever. I know rumours fly around as to what might be happening, and I don't intend to feed those - but I just had to share this: during the required disclosure of documents in the Court case pending, BW listed all their internal correspondence on the matter, and this gem emerged today:I'll have more to say on it, but one thing that really struck me - this local Forum can be dismissed as 'that's only about 5 people'! So there you go; I trust all half dozen of you are suitably chastened in contemplation of your unimportance.

Nigel Moore ● 6275d

Well it’s certainly taken no time at all for British Waterways to gleefully muscle into the act.This afternoon Ray Farrow (BW Patrol Officer) and a side-kick were about in their patrol boat, with ready made-up “Section 8” notices to place on all our boats, giving us 28 days to move them or face having BW impound them! And here I was, thinking that they might have had some sensitivity over the issue. However my reputation as someone ever ready to call them to account for bad behaviour seems to have over-ridden caution.This despicable attempt to kick us when we are apparently down will back-fire, as surely as the actions taken by Ballymore will. On that score, I am delighted to reveal that the Land Registry have refused to accede to Ballymore’s insistence that our claim to the Dock is without merit, and have determined that our case should be heard by the Adjudicator. Regardless of the eventual outcome, this itself is clear signal that the eviction was, to say the least, premature and misguided.

Nigel Moore ● 6581d

I really dislike the term 'affordable housing' it would seem they are only affordable the once and those lucky enough to get one stand to make very good profits from the resale. Personally I would like to see some thing done to prevent speculation purchasing that result in so much property remaining empty. The sale of British real estate on the international market to overseas buyers, which again results in empty properties and over inflated prices particularly in London and the south east. Both of these options would bring about a more real form of 'affordable housing'. Unfortunately it would also badly effect those currently being stuffed on over inflated house pricing. However a politician with balls that big doesn't seem to exist in British politics and with so many of them oh so very nicely placed in the current scheme of things, one never will.

Philip Walsh ● 6583d

Philip, 'Geronimo' claim that the site was sold with vacant possession and that they were surprised to find otherwise. Like you, I find that hard to believe, but regardless of oral representations, the transfer documentation lists the lease to which the titles were subject, so if they were truly surprised, then that's down to incredible incompetance on their lawyers' part.Re: Commerce Road, the Council's objections were several, and during the year-long Inquiry you can rest assured that the hopeless provision for families and 'affordable' housing were strongly highlighted.

Nigel Moore ● 6584d

Andrew thanks for the response you seem to have covered mosh of it but not quite all of it, I was unaware of the objections to the Commerce road site as stated I have been of the site lately. I would be interested to know more detail as to what the objections were. I suspect the 'poor folks islands in the sky, view of things didn't get much of an airing.As for -:The local police have huge amounts of work to do already.  I would suggest it is for the purchaser to decide whether they want to take any action.  They are best placed to judge the situation.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????I guess that would depend on who knew what and when, who agreed what, with who and when.One could also ask if it was just basic incompetents that led to this situation, but even that can sometimes be criminal.I am of course hypothesising, as find it hard to believe 'The Truth'as we know it!

Philip Walsh ● 6586d

To expand on Paul Fishers response...."What I do not understand is how the boatyard could have been bought or sold with 'Vacant possession' as clearly it was not vacant at the time. Did nobody from either side visit the site and if so how could they legally make the claim."It would appear so!"Surely something of a fraudulent nature must have taken place for this transaction  to have gone ahead, perhaps the local Police should be ask to investigate this anomaly or are the people involved to powerful."The local police have huge amounts of work to do already.  I would suggest it is for the purchaser to decide whether they want to take any action.  They are best placed to judge the situation."I observed the eviction of the boatyard with sadness my eldest brother did his apprenticeship in the local boatyards and they have all ways seemed to be one of the few good things left from Brentford's glory days."I think we were all disappointed to see that happen, but dont forget as I have stated before on this forum, the council policy remains that this site should remain a boat yard."A great deal of talk has gone on during the last decade about local regeneration and much of it like the developments themselves has been rubbish...."I agree, but sometimes there have been good schemes."I can't see the next developments being any better and the attitude of the developers seems only to support that view..."It is a case of 'wait and see' at the moment."I am not that impressed with the current proposals for Commerce road with its was new tower block developments (somewhere for the poor folk to live)perhaps....then you will be glad that the local council and councillors opposed this application.  We are now waiting for the result of the developers appeal.Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6586d

Mr Fisher I am a little confused by your posting as it seems to be assuring me over concerns I did not raise, whilst ignoring the ones I did.

Philip Walsh ● 6586d

Mr Walsh,I can assure you that all local Cllrs regardless of their group or ward have been well aware of this situation for many years.and are fully supportive of both Nigel Moore and his "ex"neighbours.On this occasion at least,local politics is on the back burner and we all as Councillors on the Isleworth and Brentford Area Committee are working closely and in harmony to bring about a solution with all parties concerned.

Paul Fisher ● 6588d

I have avoided posting on the tw8 site for some time due to the feeling that to many postings get hijacked by political point scorers, I think most of you know who I am talking about.I note that they have both kept away from this thread which to my mind shows their lack of commitment to Brentford based issues.I currently rent a basement area under some of the high street shops with a gated entrance in Brent Way. The view from here is now one of dereliction with every thing boarded up and empty.What I do not understand is how the boatyard could have been bought or sold with 'Vacant possession' as clearly it was not vacant at the time. Did nobody from either side visit the site and if so how could they legally make the claim. Surely something of a fraudulent nature must have taken place for this transaction  to have gone ahead, perhaps the local Police should be ask to investigate this anomaly or are the people involved to powerful.I observed the eviction of the boatyard with sadness my eldest brother did his apprenticeship in the local boatyardsand they have all ways seemed to be one of the few good things left from Brentford's glory days.A great deal of talk has gone on during the last decade about local regeneration and much of it like the developments themselves has been rubbish. Ferry Keys being a fine example :-0 the south bank without the people, the interesting events or the transport infrastructure to make it work. Many of the flats are empty, bought up by property speculators to the detriment of both the developments and the local populations housing needs. As one local man commented at the completion of the Island development 'That's for the rich folk to move into'. I can't see the next developments being any better and the attitude of the developers seems only to support that view.I am not that impressed with the current proposals for Commerce road with its was new tower block developments (somewhere for the poor folk to live)perhaps.

Philip Walsh ● 6588d

Thanks Duncan- have only just now been able to connect on-line again from 'home', hence the long delay. Don't know whether it's been a good thing or not, being cut off in this way for so long!I've noticed the TW8 article for the first time :“The possession order came before a possible action by another company, Brentford Yacht and Boat Ltd, contesting the High Court order based on possibly contradictory information on ownership shown on the Land Registry. However the action was dismissed as "without merit" by Geronimo.”There is some confusion (understandably given the long history!) in the details given here.To clear up two points, the High Court order of 2005 was for Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd to give possession of the site to the former owners. Not being in possession at the time anyway, (the Co. had been sent into liquidation following 2 years of High Court litigation), it does not appear to me that Ballymore had any grounds to apply this order to anyone else, -  but that needs legal opinion.As to Brentford Yacht & Boat’s claim to the Dock, this is not a contesting of the order, but a straightforward claim before the Land Registry since last October. Geronimo have indeed been saying that this is without merit, for the last 8 months of phone calls and letters to the Land Registry, calling for the application to be dismissed.I am pleased to now be able to report that the LR have not agreed with Geronimo’s lawyers that there is no merit in the case, and have decided to refer the claim to their Adjudicator.Despite the strident claims of inevitable failure of the claim, Ballymore do not wish the case to be heard, and the lawyers have written to say that they will ask the Adjudicator to direct me to file an action in the High Court, following which they would sue for ‘Security for Costs’, knowing we could not muster he minimum £50,000 or more that they estimate they’d spend on fighting it! They have 'invited' me to reflect on the consequences of this and to quietly withdraw the claim.Were they as confident as they claimed, they could simply await the Adjudicator’s decision, but they prefer the bullying approach of throwing their monetary might at us. It’s of a piece with their impatient eviction of us from all the yard, when they need only have waited to see whether we’d contest the determination of the Lease held on the rest of the yard, by 3rd October this year. It was not after all, so long to wait.Meanwhile I note from the waterways press that, as was to be expected, British Waterways who have been delighted at the event, confined their comments to the pious hope that some waterways use will be made of the site.Doubtless there will be some moorings use of the Dock envisaged within the scheme, but forget about boat maintenance and repair facilities! It will be interesting to see what they come up with later this year, when they've promised to bring forward initial ideas for public 'consultation'.

Nigel Moore ● 6588d

Nigel,That must have been a distressing experience at 7.00am in the morning. The video clip captures the drama of it all and what came across was a very threatening experience. I thought you handled it very calmly under the circumstances.I do hope the developers put into their future design proposals, something to retain Ridgeways Dock and you are involved.

Duncan Walker ● 6602d

Hi NigelGood to see you back. Not sure if its me but the pic never opened.Are you now moored along the canal or somewhere else?Best wishes.Neil

Neil Chippendale ● 6603d

... did you get all your tools and machinery clear?

Sarah Felstead ● 6603d

Thank you for posting this, Nigel.  I don't really know what to say other than we wish you all well and fingers crossed.

Sarah Felstead ● 6603d

Just to give you a taste of what it was like at the time...

Nigel Moore ● 6603d

Pat,I don't blame you...we do have a warped sense of humour at times - you'll get used to it.I honestly didn't know about the Ghurkhas (orig. Nepal, India) being in Brentford and to me the 'Far Eastern' description by Jim flashed images of baton wielding Ninja dressed in black...a shotgun was the only answer!Nice to meet you, and if you are ever down our way I'll stand you and large brandy.  How's that for an offer?

Ann S. Allridge ● 6614d

David Johnson ● 6614d

Andrew,As Jim says thanks for the explanation.

Neil Chippendale ● 6615d

Andrew,Thanks for the answers to the questions.

Duncan Walker ● 6615d

AndrewThanks for your message today explaining the matter in such a professional and informed way.

Jim Lawes ● 6615d

Hi allFriday was a difficult day for all.  Whilst clearly the developers didn't want any trouble (and hence had plenty of people on hand) I don't think any of them took any pleasure in what they were having to see through.  Andrew Healy (their site manager) showed a great deal of compassion for the impacts on the individuals involved on Friday and has been working for many weeks with the small businesses across the land south of high street to try and minimise the impacts of relocation on their businesses.    As a councillor my concern is making sure that the small company of which Nigel Moore is company secretary  have access to the legal support/advice they need, just as the developers do.  Only this way can we be sure that justice and the legal process is served fairly. Below I am pasting in Geronimo's Friday press statement, and after that I will answer a few questions (as far as I can) that have come up on the forum. Some of you have already picked up on the ongoing dialogue between the Council, the High Street Steering Group and Geronimo/ Ballymore reported on www.brentfordhighstreet.co.uk  Whilst you may not agree with the developers position on everything, I am glad that the difficult issues are being openly discussed.********************PRESS STATEMENTGeronimo Ltd (Geronimo) are the owners of land to the South East of Brent Way, Brentford, Middlesex commonly known as Ridgeway’s Wharf.Since October 2006 Geronimo’s solicitors have sent letters to the occupiers of Ridgeway’s Wharf requiring them to vacate Ridgeway’s Wharf and indicating that failure to do so would result in the enforcement of a High Court Possession Order.As a consequence of the occupiers failing to vacate Ridgeway’s Wharf, this morning an Authorised High Court Enforcement Officer and his staff enforced a Possession Order dated 17th October 2005.Geronimo are aware that Brentford Yacht & Boat Co Ltd have lodged with the Land Registry an application for Adverse Possession of Ridgeway’s Wharf.  Geronimo are opposing the application having received legal advice that the application is entirely without merit.Any further enquiries should be made to Rebekah Paczek of PPS Group, 69 Grosvenor Street, London W1K 3JW Tel: 020 7529 1716/07825 312 412BackgroundOn the 17th October 2005 the High Court ordered that Ridgeway Motors (Isleworth) Ltd give to Alts Ltd (Alts), the then owners, possession of Ridgeway’s Wharf.On the 24th July 2006, Alts sold Ridgeway’s Wharf to Geronimo.On the 23rd March 2007, Alts assigned to Geronimo the benefit of the 17th October 2005 High Court Order.********************"Could someone explain again what is the position on who owns the Rideways Wharf/Dock and what lease/ownership rights Nigel had?"As the Geronimo statement explains the Land Registry have received an application for Adverse Possession of Ridgeway’s Wharf.  Given this dispute over lease/ownership rights it is in part a case of 'wait and see' as to what the Land Registry decides."Did this eviction happen with the LBH council's knowledge?"I (and some other councillors) received a call on Friday morning from the developers, as well as Nigel Moore.  Apart from that the Council was not formally notified, but there is no obligation on the developer to do so, and clearly - for obvious reasons - it is not a process any company is going to advertise in advance."What happens to Nigel and friends' boats now?"I suspect they will hover where they are for now, whilst the situation is resolved through the Land Registry."What does this imply for the suggestions from the community on the design of the South of the High Street Development? Will they just be ignored?"The Council/ councillors have clearly expressed through the Brentford Area Action Plan (local planning document) that we intend a boat repair facility to remain at Ridgeway's Yard.  I hope once the ownership situation is clarified once and for all we can have constructive discussions with the owners about how this can be achieved."What is happening at the moment with the owners and the devlopment actions?"The developers want to complete as much of the land asquisition as possible and resolve legal disputes (Ridgeway's Yard particularly) before entering 'pre-application consultation'.  In this phase (I would guess in a few months time, but yet to be finally confirmed) they will enter into discussions with the local community about their plans.  I hope the plans will from the outset show a strong correlation with the community vision as well as taking it much further forward with a greater level of detail.I hope this clarifies some of the issues for everyone.  Don't forget the community feedback event is this Tuesday (19th June), 7pm at Watermans Arts Centre.Best regardsAndrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6615d

Ann, I offer my sincerist apologies for mis-interpreting your message, believing it to have xenophobic connotations. I believe that's 2 regular posters I have managed to upset in my fist 2 hours of membership, both times due to a failure to pick-up on anothers humour. At a rate of 1 an hour, I should have each and every one of you spitting feathers at me by teatime tonight haha! I'm hoping that I am allowed to stick around long enough to learn to appreciate the subleties of individual members posting styles. That is unless I am now to be forever tarred with the dreaded 'pc brigade' brush, in which case I would be off like a flash! I hope we can leave this behind us and get on with more positive discussions :-)

Pat Ashton ● 6615d

pm sent to Ann.

Sarah Felstead ● 6616d

Pat,Before going to bed, I simply have to post again on your protest about my terminology.  I reread my words to see how I had suddenly become a xenophobe.My mind's eye had pictured the docks being prowled by baton wielding Ninja...sadly both Jim and I have a similar sense of humour and are at times inclined to write without remembering the pc brigade...God help us all!Only a few days ago I sang the praises of the Ghurka Regt. on another thread - I had no idea Ghurkas were at the docklands in Brentford - didn't realise the situation had grown so out of hand....SORRY ..that sense of humour again.I am from a family with a military background - admittedly most of my menfolk were squaddies back years ago - National Service and Regular, and  I probably know far more about the Ghurkas than yourself - Military History being my passion for the past twenty five years.  Then again I may not, but I do get tired of the trumpeteers of the pc brigade, and simply had to let off steam before bye-byes.Are you local?

Ann S. Allridge ● 6616d

Try copying and pasting the second one AnnSarah uses Photobucket so she may be able to advise.I use Flickr these days...but have a little problem with "size of picture"  fitting forum page"

Jim Lawes ● 6616d

Pat,Ignorantly I copied the term from the thread....elsewhere my views on the great Ghurka Regiment have been strongly expressed a week ago.

Ann S. Allridge ● 6616d

Well, as is usual, I made a right pig's ear of that....HELP!I am on Photobucket and there are three squares under my photos, I copied and pasted the top one - hoping to transfer it to the thread...you have seen the result.

Ann S. Allridge ● 6616d

http://photobucket.com/faq?catID=55&catSelected=f&topicID=462http://photobucket.com/faq?catID=55&catSelected=f&topicID=462Jim & all, A photo may be coming in from you-know-who....

Ann S. Allridge ● 6616d

Duncan,Sad thing is when I lived in Brentford in the 1970s I'd didn't appreciate it as much as now....ain't that just life?  Too busy chasing cobwebs.  My office window looked right out on to one of the canals (Soag, Transport Avenue).Good thing there are still some dedicated fighters making a fuss, and not simply shutting up shop and creeping silently away.  It is all too sad and bad.    Look at Tara over here in Ireland, for heaven's sake....one of the world's best known historical sites (albeit mostly green fields now);  they are going to build a motorway across it!!!!!!!!!!!  That's Bertie for you!

Ann S. Allridge ● 6616d

Welcome Pat.We're a friendly and informative group really..and we have all learned so much about the area we live in through the helpfulness of this Forum. We are all indebted to the organisation behind the scenes who give us this wonderful cyberspace facility.Be sure also..that the other poster you referred to is one of many very nice ladies on the Forum..and she may have misinterpreted my misinterpretation!  Hope that makes sense.!!!Regards to Nigel and friends if they see these messages.

Jim Lawes ● 6616d

Thank you for your patient and considered reply Jim. I would point out that my concerns were for the postings of another contributor though."It's all been a shock. Perhaps a lot of money would be needed to launch an appeal of sorts...but I'm not too au fait with the deep deep nitty gritty."From researching the various links and info sources posted in the TW8 forum, I am getting mixed messages.  I have no beef with Nigel Moore, but it does appear as though he was living/working(?) there illegally. How else would the police be willing to enforce the eviction? My concern is for the true victims as I see it. Those paying rent for moorings to someone that was not in a postion to either offer them space or take their money for it. I hope I am wrong and that Nigel Moore will correct my assumption, but it certainly appears to be very clear that those mooring at Ridgeways were being scammed.

Pat Ashton ● 6616d

""Another point I would raise is that some of the comments I read seem to border on xenophobia. Are 'Far Eastern personnel' considered unfit for the role of security guard? Before answering that, please be aware that the word on the ground is that they are all ex-Gurkha's. These boys have served and defended Britain since the mid-1800's. Are they good enough to die for our liberty, but to be despised and so easily rejected once they leave service?""Pat,Please be assured that I typed the words "Far Eastern"because ..at the time of tapping away at my keyboard I couldn't exactly remember for sure the name of the nationality that had been told to me by a senior official at the eviction scene. But I knew they were tops!My immediate interpretation at the time of that conversation was that a MOST SUITABLE nationality of PERSONNEL had been recruited to do the security job properly. And I was pleased to hear that. It gave me the assurance that I and some others were hoping for..to keep swalleywags off site. The integrity of ex-Gurkha is ..I say again.. tops.  What a fine choice for the job.So, I hope your observation is allayed.Pleased to hear that Andrew Dakers visited the scene too..it was a long day..I was only there for some two hours or so..and so perhaps there were other Councillors or key people too..who visited.It's all been a shock. Perhaps a lot of money would be needed to launch an appeal of sorts...but I'm not too au fait with the deep deep nitty gritty.

Jim Lawes ● 6616d

Andrew Dakers also put in an appearance.From what I read here, Ridgeways was being occuppied illegally. Is this the case or was Nigel Moore a legitimate rent paying tenant? If he was, then something stinks. If however, he was not there legally, do the boat owners paying him rent (in good faith) have any recourse against him?Another point I would raise is that some of the comments I read seem to border on xenophobia. Are 'Far Eastern personnel' considered unfit for the role of security guard? Before answering that, please be aware that the word on the ground is that they are all ex-Gurkha's. These boys have served and defended Britain since the mid-1800's. Are they good enough to die for our liberty, but to be despised and so easily rejected once they leave service?For shame...

Pat Ashton ● 6616d

Thanks for drawing attention to these.I was worried by the comment :"However, empty buildings are attractive to squatters, arsonists and curious children and many contain asbestos. There will, therefore, be a third party liability concern which may lead to selective prior demolitions."Who was talking about Firestone ?.........

Tim Henderson ● 6616d

Ann,You must really feel for these waterways and boats, it being in your family. When I read some developers' comments, it seems they think more in terms of occupancy space, profit margins, ease of development and find it difficult to feel the community culture and priorities, and accept this as 'evidential base' (to use their term). When you look at examples of their developments, they all seem to look the same, glass boxes. I do hope we can build a relationship with our developers, which values our input and is not met with any arrogant and patronising professional tone.I'm sure we can make sure we preserve Brentford's waterways heritage.

Duncan Walker ● 6616d

Duncan,Thanks for all the information;  perhaps in the long run all will be well for the boat owners like Nigel & his friends.  Let's hope so.It would be a tragedy and a terrible shame to lose these glorious and historic long boats from the Brentford area. (Me?  A Ham, Brentford, lighterman's granddaughter).

Ann S. Allridge ● 6616d

I found more information which answers more of my earlier questions. They are on the Brentford High Street steering group website: http://www.openplans.org/projects/brentfordhighstreet/community-planning/under section WORKS SO FAR and The seventh meeting, both the FEEDBACK FROM THE DEVELOPERS:http://www.openplans.org/projects/brentfordhighstreet/community-planning/ballymore-development-consultant-to-cllr-dakers-18-5-07.pdfand RESPONSE TO BALLYMORE:http://www.openplans.org/projects/brentfordhighstreet/community-planning/high-street-steering-group-response-to-ballymore-11-june-2007.pdfThey make fascinating reading of the owners/developers reaction to the community vision, and indicate their tone, and strong disagreement to many points. They are strong exchanges in a 'constructive dialogue'. Essential reading.

Duncan Walker ● 6616d

I found an explanation for who owns Ridgeways and their intention to gain vacant possession, in the minutes of a 'Meeting to discuss South side of Brentford High Street'Venue: Liberal Democrat Office, Civic Centre 11th April 2007, 2pmPresentDavid Walker (DW) Alan Selby and Partners/ GeronimoEmma Demaine (ED) BallymoreRebecca Paczek (RP) Ballymore/Geronimo (PPS PR)Tony McGuirk (TM) Chair of BDP – Geronimo’s Appointed Architects,Cllr Andrew Dakers (AD) Councillor for Brentford Ward/ Chair - HighStreet Steering GroupCllr Phil Andrews (PA) Councillor for Isleworth WardBob Holt (BH) London Borough of Hounslowhttp://www.openplans.org/projects/brentfordhighstreet/community-planning/bhst-meeting-110407-minutes_final.pdfan extract is:"3. Evictions- how can we work together to reduce negative impacts?AD - There are 3 sites offering concern-Ridgeways YardBrent Way Trading EstateTown WharfManaging this sensitively will clearly provide good foundations for the preapplication consultation phase.DW – DW explained that evictions was an incorrect term as the majority of tenants were on leases or licences which had been determined. The determination strategy was being pursued as Geronimo had experienced problems with occupiers and the public indemnity issues, health and safety concerns and security issues had all contributed to a general mandate from Geronimo to secure vacant possession and secure their land. A priority across the site is securing and resolving possession issues, once this is resolved happy to support people in finding other premises..Ridgeways YardDW - This site was bought with vacant possession; however once on site it became apparent this wasn’t the case. In Oct 2005, the courts issued possession order. The possession order has been assigned to Geronimo and the legal process is being pursued to regain the possession of the land from the occupying parties. The lawyers believe that possession will be gained and a likely timeframe is inthe region of no more than 3/4months. This is not personal and is a purely legal process and will be followed throughto its conclusion.AD – Local councillors are concerned that this remains a working boatyard and is key to the character and economy of Brentford. Community values the presence of remaining boat building/repair industry and wants to keep this aspart of the waterfront. Reflected in discussion at recent local area committee and our stance on Commerce Rd proposals. MSO boat yard has waiting list of about six months.DW - Developers are aware of importance of boats to the local community.DW - Meeting being organised between Mr Moore and Ballymore.AD – Increasingly clear from the Community planning workshops that the final report will support boatyards across the development site. More work needs to be undertaken by council looking at how capacity can be increased, how a “community boat yard” might be developed, as well as skills/ training for local boat building industry. Council need to research British Waterways ownership/ leasing arrangements on north side of Dr Johnson’s Island and whether this can help boost capacity."

Duncan Walker ● 6616d

jim,"Teams of Far Eastern personnel...." - it's worse than I thought...police state followed by invasion?I am not being funny - it's not my business but I am furious.  If I were one of the boat owners, the shotgun would be very tempting!

Ann S. Allridge ● 6616d

This is horrendous....!    Sympathies to Nigel and friends - what the hell is happening over there?  Is Blighty turning into a police state?

Ann S. Allridge ● 6616d

Could someone explain again what is the position on who owns the Rideways Wharf/Dock and what lease/ownership rights Nigel had?Did this eviction happen with the LBH council's knowledge?What happens to Nigel and friends' boats now?What does this imply for the suggestions from the community on the design of the South of the High Street Development? Will they just be ignored?What is happening at the moment with the owners and the devlopment actions?

Duncan Walker ● 6616d

Thanks for your concerns Andrew and Neil..both of you from far away places too!  You both will have followed the goings on SOTHS over many many years..and for much longer than I..and in much more depth too.Tonight I endeavoured to contact Nigel and friends at about 9pm in case they fancied a snack at La Rosetta..to ease the pain..and was only able to leave messages. It's as though a light has gone out on SOTHS..but the canalboats are not far away there on the Canal.  But people's work is disrupted..so there must be some hardships.  More such activities could happen on the 23rd!Nonetheless I returned to the scene of today's activity at 9.30pm ish to find that a team of security staff were on the premises keeping watch for intruders. Mr Andrew Healy the Site Manager for Geronimo comfirmed today that this would be the case.  Teams of Far Eastern personnel had been engaged to look after specific areas and buildings SOTHS..as per our  concerns earlier on this thread.----------------------------------------------------------The waterway to the dock has been blocked off from the Canal..to prevent marine intruders!----------------------------------------------------------And Ridgeways has been emptied of the tied up canalboats.. so it's an empty scene starting tonight!

Jim Lawes ● 6617d

JimThanks for the updates. All very sad. Well done to Cllr Hamer for arrving on the scene even though he couldn't do much as he was up against the High Court.Its bye bye the South-side.Any news on Nigel?

Neil Chippendale ● 6617d

You're right - that's not nice reading Jim. Was shocked at first, but thinking about it this episode seems horribly like a variety of others over the decades. I'm not been in the loop with the high street stuff recently...but last time I was I had the impression Nigel was one of the last hopes. Oh dear.

Andrew Raine ● 6617d

...omitted from last message..lawsey tiring!--------------------------------------------------------""Whilst the bailiffs discussed their next move...whilst the tide was high!!""--------------------------------------------------------end for today!

Jim Lawes ● 6617d

-----------------------------------------------------------Having removed a couple of canalboats from the Ridgeways/Workhouse dock to the Grand Union Canal outside..the marine bailiffs return in their inflatible dinghy to extract another.----------------------------------------------------------...whilst Keith the engineer, the Hounslow Chronicle reporter and his cameraman..and Matt Hamer look on..perhaps in amazement!..but certainly in sadness..hopefully!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------In the meantime..Nigel was on the phone outside..seeking help no doubt.---------------------------------------------------------Whilst the bailiffs discussed their next move...whilst the tide was high!!

Jim Lawes ● 6617d

On the way to Ridgeways...I was wondering how I could possibly help Nigel and friends..as there would be law enforcement officers all around pressing on with their work. On arrival at the entrance to Ridgeways it seems that observers with cameras were not overly welcome!A formitable looking blue van was parked at the entrance and not far away..some of the team of Bailiffs."No you can't come in was the first response"----------------------------------------------------------Gentlemen in suits, and chaps in black attire, and heavies in wet suits...mingled together..with Nigel and tenants busily packing what they had time to take with them.-----------------------------------------------------------Of course TW8.com were able to help a little with packing cartons and storage services..but more importantly Matt turned up to give Councillor support..and that was most welcome...and that showed commendable help when help was needed.-----------------------------------------------------------But High Court Orders are severe! and with Court Enforcers in your yard..together with Bailiffs..you don't stand much of a chance to resist!---------------------------------------------------------And so it went on..more to follow.  One repeats..there is no joy in posting such news about this sad day for a Forum friend..but many people are interested to know what went on.

Jim Lawes ● 6617d

There is no joy in reporting today's activites at what we call Ridgeways..the canalboat basin and repair yard...that we have read so much about on these Forums.  Nigel Moore and friends and associates seem to have been forced out of "their property" by a Company who assume ownership! It seems that at an early hour this morning a large team of assorted officials arrived at the premises..accessed from Brent Way..and from a gate on the Canal towpath...and produced a High Court warrant demanding clearance of the site by high tide at 3pm ..or soon after.A group of Police attended early on in case there was trouble..but they were soon stood down. A fearsome looking team of High Court Enforcement Officers..supported by Bailiffs and Marine Baliffs with their wet suits and dinghies...got down to their task!It would seem that our earlier messages on this thread. activated the Council and maybe a Councillor or two..and certainly the Hounslow Chronicle...indeed perhaps even the owners representatives!There was just a couple of us endeavouring to give Nigel help..during this sad event.More to follow!

Jim Lawes ● 6617d

""-Interupted for awhile, a large team of bailiffs and police arrived an hour ago - turfing us out by lunch they say!""I've just phoned Nigel Moore to find out what's happened and if he needed help..not that I can offer much. It seems that the baliffs and others are still at "Ridgeways Boat Yard"..people are packing things up..locks are being fitted etc etc Notices to quit with canalboats at High Tide at 3pm+ etc etc.  Sounds as though Nigel needs some urgent legal advice..and moral help perhaps.This is all quite separate from the E Day matter on 23rd June.I'll nip down there with some packing boxes and a van!!

Jim Lawes ● 6617d

From talking to Conservation officers, I know they DO care, and are enchanted with some of the currently hidden buildings.It seems that somewhat higher up the scale, those who could take the decision to go with the English Heritage recommendations are afraid to, worrying perhaps that this might adversely affect the prospects of regeneration. The mindset hasn't changed from the post-war MCC.Thumb-twiddling and procrastination will do their work for them, ably assisted by the site owners.-Interupted for awhile, a large team of bailiffs and police arrived an hour ago - turfing us out by lunch they say!

Nigel Moore ● 6617d

or does LBH care.

Neil Chippendale ● 6618d

Lol NigelBarrymore will do for now!! Writing most of my messages to the Forums off the cuff..it's surprising that I hadn't called the landlords of much of SOTHS Tobermory or even Ballymory..such is my keyboard haste sometimes!!Let's hope that someone is concerned about the damage that could be further inflicted on some of those old buildings. Seeing SOTHS buildings uncared for ..even the ones on the High Street is bad enough...to have scalleywags stripping out the buildings or further damaging the fabric..is too much. But does Brentford care?

Jim Lawes ● 6618d

Reproduced but adapted from the Brentford High Street newsletter just published.

Jim Lawes ● 6618d

Thanks for that tip Neil..I'm not sure how the Council feel about the old buildings. However, a lot of work has been done by many community leaders..as you may have seen on their websites.That recent BrentfordHighStreet newsletter contained an interesting map of ideas for SOTHS..which I have recoloured, and reillustrated and have numbered the key buildings as well.Nigel,Of course you're in the thick of things down there on the Canal..and surrounded by many possible changes. No doubt you will be aware of the all the detail of what's going on..whilst I have my ear to the ground when I get a chance.I'm very au fait with the geography SOTHS though and thus this illustration, that I've played with tonight, might help others to understand the locality too!I'll post thye map on the next message..because it may be so large as to disrupt the above text.

Jim Lawes ● 6618d

I believe LBH pays scant regard to Heritage and conservation. I can't see them being that concerned about most of the building SOTH. I do know that English Heritage visited the area some time ago but I don't know what the outcome was.

Neil Chippendale ● 6618d

Can't be the Barrymore group Jim - they've just been arrested!But you are right, there are grave concerns as to the future of buildings that will be losing their caretaking tenants, and as we know from what's been happening next door to us at Twickenham Plating, stripping out the buildings of plumbing and wiring follows swiftly.I cannot understand the reluctance of the Council to declare the necessary Conservation Area. Contrary to general belief, this does not interfere with development and necessary demolition, it simply means that permission has to be requested first. If a building's of no importance, permission is readily granted. But what's the bet the first to go will be the ones of value?

Nigel Moore ● 6618d