Forum Topic

Brentford Area Action Plan latest

BAAP Site Allocations and EiP.For those who have taken part over the years in the consultation over Brentford’s Area Action Plan, it has to be worth following up the call for responses, first to representations made as to site allocations, and secondly as to the Examination in Public next year(in January?). Responses to the Site briefs however, must be in by 13th December.To see what representations were made against the Plan, see:  http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/environment_and_planning/planning/planning_policy/local_development_framework/brentford_area_action_plan/baap_site_allocations_reps.pdfIt will come as no surprise that such little as there was in the Plan regarding Commerce Road, upset ISIS and the Bonnington Group. They want to see the current policy changed to reflect what they wanted from the site. Well the recent decision is going to affect that, and I’d hope that all interested parties will write in to not only support the Council/Community’s views on the area, but make it plain what sort of regeneration is desired. The Council have always been accepting of a mixed-use development, they simply make the clear distinction between an industrial-led mixed use and a residential-led mixed use.The Inspector’s Report on Commerce Road made abundantly clear the existing failure of the UDP’s to specifically safeguard the wharf for future freight use. It highlighted just how vital specificity is in planning – airy generalised aspirations just don’t cut it. (That's something we should seek to address in the EiP - little could be done in the BAAP re: Commerce Rd while the decision was awaited).This is clearly recognised by Ballymore, who have understandably taken exception to the thankfully specific recommendations of the Plan with reference to Ridgeways and all waterside areas. A first read through, their suggested re-wording of the M8 policy sounds innocuous. It is when you read their following suggestions that their purpose becomes clear. They don’t want waterside industry – so believe that the phrase ‘waterside uses’ adequately embraces this. Of course it doesn’t – and the Commerce Road decision emphasises just that point. The boatyard services and offline moorings have been recognised as a vital need that is desired by the community at large, and the Plan did its best to appropriately word the policy in order to ensure the achievement of this.Let’s build on one success to maintain another – write in to support the public vision for Brentford, one that is undiluted by the very different agendas of the various developers! All info is up there on the Council's website:http://www.hounslow.gov.uk/index/environment_and_planning/planning/planning_policy/local_development_framework/brentford_area_action_plan

Nigel Moore ● 6443d2 Comments

'Live' is right Paul - I never could have imagined how long it takes to get these policies fixed! Perhaps it's just as well given the planning history of various sites within the boundaries. We were fortunate to win out over the Kew Bridge site, and the developers were forced to take the Inspector's report onboard in directing new architects. But just recall what we could have ended up with!Commerce Road was another instance where the BAAP came in too late to help against the British Waterways Board scheme. Thankfully we won that anyway, but it would have been so much easier to have had definitive safeguards built in to the policies. From the waterways' perspective, the Commerce Road scheme was all the worse for being a betrayal of the waterways by their supposed guardians - not that there was anything to be surprised at there!The debacle has hopefully done some good however, if the planning department can now see the more clearly, how little to be trusted are BW's contributions to the planning process. If there's a buck to be made, BW will sell the river itself down the river!As to M8 (South High St), BW's long held antagonism against the boatyard at Ridgeways, (despite protestations of neutrality), has come out of the closet at last, with their teaming up with Ballymore in a joint attempt to stamp out Brentford Yacht & Boat Co altogether. One can understand, though not condone, Ballymore's registered protests at the BAAP requirement for a boatyard facilty to be safeguarded and improved. But where was the need for BW to pitch in with them? BW in fact went one further - they tried to throw all of us out of the area altogether!So we need to ensure that the BAAP is not fatally weakened as Ballymore have suggested, and as BW would approve. Their joint opposition to waterside industry is too blatantly publicised in the Site Allocations Representations. As Paul says, the issue is still live, and will remain so until the Secretary of State has signed off on the Plan. It's down to us to make sure that it is, and in the form that it was presented.- As an aside, I received comment from people from all over London on this Plan, and most were amazed at the example it set on waterside issues (which are those admittedly, that I've been particularly interested in!) The end result of many years, it was and is a credit, not only to all the members of the public who contributed so much for so long, but to the planning department and the local area committee. All members, of all parties and factions, have been united in the attainment of this goal. That is quite some achievement.

Nigel Moore ● 6443d

I was proud to sign off this plan last June so thanks for highlighting this Nigel as all opinions on the plan are welcomed and as this is a live document are highly valued.

Paul Fisher ● 6443d