Forum Topic

Barratt Phallus for the north quarter

So Hounslow Councils planning committee has approved the 25 story Barratt Phallus for the north quarter. I don't suppose any of the councillors (who raised no objections) plan on living in this giant carbuncle, which will dominate/blight the local skyline and rob so many people of sun light. Personally I think it’s a very poor decision for the locals and will usher in a whole new planning policy, which will see lots more ugly islands in the sky. Much to the detriment of the area in general.Still I guess the local poor have to live somewhere, the riverside development aren’t for them are they.

Philip Walsh ● 6991d29 Comments

Do you know for a fact that no Hounslow Councillors raised any objections or are you just presuming?

Paul Fisher ● 6991d

Are you opposing it just because it's a medium tall tower?Don't you think it's nicer with a tall, sleek tower rather than having a bulky lowrise that uses all the ground space that oterwise could be used by people?If it was on Brentford High Street, it's OK to oppose it, but a tower in GWQ is not exactly misplaced. It might even become the new icon of Mrentford and will look great for all those arriving London on the M4.

Jorgen Molna ● 6991d

The no objection reference comes from the report on this site.As for a 'medium height tower' in down town Manhattan maybe. but on the great west road it will tower over everything (until every thing else is built as tall, and every one in its shadow east, north and west loses their sun at some point of their day. Do have any plans to move in when its built, would you live in it.

Philip Walsh ● 6991d

I'd love to live in it. The view will be stunning.It's good that there will be a public bar on the top.I don't get your point regarding loosing the sun. It's not as if everyone living in the UK has a right to a certain amount of sun hours. Personally I don't get sun after 2pm.

Jorgen Molna ● 6991d

Why have you raised this subject again?  The subject was done to death in the thread that you started a year ago, after the Council approved the overall plan.  It was explained then that the 25-storey tower is part of a hotel complex*. Has that plan changed?  Which committee (SDC or Area Committee) are you talking about, and when was the meeting? I know you don't like tower blocks, but your latest post looks like just another opportunity to be rude about the plans, which you didn't object to during the consultation period.* In this post.

Richard Jennings ● 6991d

Why should I not I raise this subject again.I see discussion about it still seems to create a sense of panic amongst its supporters. The planning approval is for a Hotel complex but its easer to get a change of use plan put through than building plans. If you recall I do not live in the immediate area of this development, so was not able to object at the planning stage that does not mean I am not entitled to an opinion. Yes! I am rubbishing the planning process because in my opinion this was /is a crap idea.The president it creates will hamper any future objections to high rise developments on the Great West Road and surrounding area and increase the pressure to allow the unsuitable development of the site on the Chiswick roundabout. How many years will it take before much of the south side of Brentford becomes devoid of sunlight and disappears behind a wall of concrete and glass? That seems to be the plan from my view, can any one guarantee this will not be the case.How long before the proposals for tower block developments at Commerce road re appear. Will the arguments against them carry as much weight once this monstrosity is built only a short distance away? I doubt it.Will the skyline view from any of the local parks be improved by yet another tower block? Which in time will become as ugly and dirty as those at Green Dragon Lane, I don't think so!As for the subject being done to death, my own view was that its supporters backed away from the post because it raised issues that they do not want aired. Tower blocks do not only affect those that live next to it. It sits as a dominant feature and effects people for miles around.

Philip Walsh ● 6990d

You are a very typical nimby :)

Jorgen Molna ● 6990d

You are a very typical nimby. Does this mean anything in English or any other language ? or is it perhaps Chav nuspeak:-)

Philip Walsh ● 6990d

It is typical 'Jorgen-wind-you-up-speak' Philip.  If you search using the name you may find examples.  :-)

Sarah Felstead ● 6990d

It's OK I figured it out.Its 'not in my back yard' but the roundabout is close. As for the bar at the top, well at least its got good 'road' connections, drunks can come for miles around to enjoy the view.:-(

Philip Walsh ● 6990d

How long before somebody decides that the tramp must go?  :-(

Sarah Felstead ● 6990d

The legend must stay. There is a good group for him on Facebook :)

Jorgen Molna ● 6990d

Well Philip,you get my vote on this one.How anyone in their right mind can come out in favour of massive and imposing stuctures like this is beyond me.Never mind the crass 'nimby' comments,they are too easy to make.I wonder how long some people who think this have lived in the parish and if they know or care about the history and heritage of the area.I hope it casts a shadow on their houses,in the middle of a nice summer day.

Keith Iddon ● 6990d

Massive? Ha! That's exactly what a tall building ISN'T :)Tall buildings are sleek and beautiful. Massive is a bulky groundscraper that uses all the space on the ground and leaving no space for pedestrians.What history damage will a tall sleek tower do to that area that a bulky lowrise wouldn't?

Jorgen Molna ● 6989d

Jorgen What history damage will a tall sleek tower do to that area that a bulky lowrise wouldn't?Have you been to Green Dragon lately or looked west from the river bank at strand on the green. looked north from over the river at Kew, or south from Gunnersbury park. How long have you lived round this area that you can ask such a question. Are you blind.

Philip Walsh ● 6989d

Asking weather i'm blind is almost an insult. I just have another opinion than you, can't you accept that.I've lived in brentford for 3 years.You can't seriously compare the Green Dragon Lane blocks to the planned Skylon. It's a nother league. Do you even think the tower part of GSK looks bad? Or the Great West House, with its neon light on top?

Jorgen Molna ● 6989d

"I hope it casts a shadow on their houses,in the middle of a nice summer day."What houses are those?  In the middle of a nice summer's day, its shadow will fall northwards, across the M4/A4 and the buildings on the other side of the A4, which I thought are, or are being redeveloped as, industrial.  The idea that this building will put half of Brentford in shadow seems a bit OTT.

Richard Jennings ● 6989d

JorgenIt was not my intention to be rude.The historical View from the locations I mentioned have not been improved by the tower blocks, although I must confess those parts from which the old gas tower could be seen were not good views. However it was not as imposing from so far away. I can also remember the time between when neither dominated the skyline, it was much nicer. I have lived Just a little down the road on the Chiswick, Brentford and Gunnersbury border since 1959 and spent much of my youth and working life around Brentford it was from this perspective the 'blind' question arose.Richard I am sure you are aware that the location of the block is one of the reasons it had such a easy ride, I also suspect that you surely must realise this is a 'wedge in the door' for all future planning applications to be compared against. That is what I have a problem with and its then the north side becomes the dark side.Please no 'May the force be with you jokes'.

Philip Walsh ● 6988d

Philip no worries. We'll never agree on this. I like the tower and that's my opinion, which is an opinion I think it's good to share. It fits well into the area with the other tall buildings. If only the nasty M4 flyover could be demolished. Build a long underground tunnel or whatever instead...Maybe we can agree that roads does more damage to an area than tall buildings ;)

Jorgen Molna ● 6988d

Jorgen,You have been in Brentford 3 yrs. The tower is likely to take a couple of years to build. Will you still be living in the parish then to 'enjoy' it?

Keith Iddon ● 6987d

That's a question I'd like to know the answer of :)We've lived in London since 2002 and our current tenancy expires in summer 2009. One day we'll move back to Norway for sure, but wheather that day is in 2009 or later, we don't know yet. It all depends on work.This is OT sorry :)

Jorgen Molna ● 6987d

'OT' meaning what...?Strikes me your support for this tower is a bit,considering your 'nimby'comments,of a wind up as you probably won't be around to see it when it is looming large and unwanted in the lives of many local residents.Or are you the architect or someone with some other vested interest?If it will not be affecting your future or your children's,what concern is it of yours?

Keith Iddon ● 6987d

OT = Off Topic.Are you saying I should not at all care about any local issues here since I plan to move away some day, not knowing when yet? That's like saying to an old person not to complain about anything, coz he's gonna die soon anyway... Ok, then I shall never again post on this forum.I'm just very interested in architecture and in particular tall buildings. Just like I'm interested in sports cars and actively discussing them on certain forums even though I probably never will be able to afford one myself.I'm no architect or anything related. I work with making games for mobile phones.

Jorgen Molna ● 6987d

Jorgen,Your 'nimby' comments just seemed a bit disingenuous when it's not going to be your back yard for very long.

Keith Iddon ● 6986d

Jorgen As I understand it you are a fan of sports cars but don,t drive one and a fan of tall buildings but don't live in one.Your enthusiasm seems a bit weak,as does your argument in favour of this block considering you seem to have no intention to stay in the area.

Philip Walsh ● 6984d

I can't help but wonder if the vast amount of building materials due to be heading for this site is linked to the rumour over the closing of junction 2 of the M4 due to traffic congestion.

Philip Walsh ● 6979d

Barratt Phallus HAS to be the best porn star name...;-)

Keith Iddon ● 6979d

While I was not on the planning committee at the time of the decision I did attend the meeting where the decision was taken.My memory is that after a long period of discussion and consultation with the local community, planners and councillors, most of the objections to the scheme were met, and on the night there was an almost unique cross party consensus to give approval to the scheme.The hotel building was reduced in height from the original proposal, and the amount of space for employment was increased with these two changes helping to make the whole development acceptable to the members of the planning committee on the night. The fact that there are several unsightly abandoned industrial sites in this area has brought about a change in direction of policy. Allowing these ugly abandoned old buildings to become mixed residential/employments developments was seen as the best option to halt the decline of this area. The development does retain the best of the existing buildings and replaces a 60's office block with a tall hotel building. If you are opposed to high buildings then you will always be unhappy with this but it is not out of character with other tall buildings in the Great West Road.I noticed in the original message a reference to "local poor" people having to live somewhere, but I imagine the eventual users of a hotel in this area will not be necessarily poor. The jobs it will provide for hotel staff will probably be a mixture of wage levels so I suppose you will get some local residents of differing wage incomes working there. As far as the decision is concerned as I said there was a broad consensus on the night, but even if this had been refused it probably would have got approval on appeal as there were many positive aspects of the regeneration scheme that an inspector or the minister responsible might have eventually approved. The tall hotel would not have been grounds for refusal as the planning guidelines in force at the time did not indicate this kind of use as unacceptable.

Colin Ellar ● 6978d

ColinThere are NO 25 story building on the Great West Road to compare this building to; yet! As already stated, this building will be what ALL future developments will be compared against during the planning process.Whilst there may have been some consultation with the very few residents that live in the immediate area, (it is after all surrounded by mostly derelict factory type units), No consideration seems to have been given to the knock on effects of this phallus to developments in the rest of the area and indeed, beyond. The disputes surrounding the size of development of the site at Chiswick roundabout being the most obviously undermined. As I am sure everybody involved in the planning process would have /should have been aware of. It is also something you must also be aware of.In my opinion (for what little its worth to local planning) is that it was a somewhat under handed way of pushing forward the kinds of developments that have been stopped throughout most of the borough due to proposed structures that will dwarf the buildings around them. This will simply not be so any more! will it?I wonder, has the name for this building been decided on and who gets to vote. I know what names I would suggest but I doubt they would be excepted no matter how many people voted for them.

Philip Walsh ● 6977d