Oliver on the High Street
If it is desired to continue this debate I thought it best to separate it from the meeting up topic.I didn’t see your comment as rude Oliver, so no apologies needed and a conversation over a beer is always helpful. To continue from the relevant postings:Oliver Damianni:Apologies for rudeness but I would like to come along myself, not least so I can meet up with Nigel who I hold largely responsible for the hold-up of the redevelopment of the high street. I have read his arguments on a number of occasions on this site and must profess that i fail to properly understand his line of reasoning. Maybe a conversation over a beer would help?! Meantime I can't help but wonder whether Nigel feels some responsbility when visiting the High Street and seeing the abject state of the place the lack of investment and the failing businesses. This is all a direct consequence of what seems to me unneccessary delays in a much needed redevelopment. Nigel seems to be Brentford's (annoyingly successful so far) King Kanute, trying to turn back the tide...clearly this can't last for ever, and I would appreciate getting Nigel's take on the situation.Neil Chippendale:Oliver,Please feel free to come along. The main problem with the lack of progress on the Brentford South Side isn't Nigel it's the fact that you have two competing companies who have each purchased large chunks of land and who never seem to talk to each other.Alan Sheerins:The redevelopment has been delayed because until very recently the land was in the hands of more than one developer. I very much admire Nigel and his fight to retain traditional industry and prevent the over-development of Brentford. He is not to blame him for the slow pace of this re-development.Oliver Damianni:incorrect.nigel's endless attempts to whip up petitions and objections would occur (and will remain a feature no doubt) whether there are one or several developers involved. ...........................................Quite frankly, I’d be highly gratified to think I was responsible for holding up the proposal for the High St that was around for a good number of years. It was a deplorable and destructive scheme that could only have made matters worse. However as Neil and Alan have noted, I can’t take that credit.Brentford’s High St is a complicated issue that has been seen as a problem for centuries, and the sad state we see it in today is a direct result of the well-meaning efforts of the post-war predecessors of this Council. As the architect Terry Farrell has commented ruefully, had the High St been left alone in the first place, Brentford Town Centre would now be a more successful, profitable, attractive and sought after destination than any of our neighbours.Perhaps I should clarify that I am not against redevelopment? The drab 1950’s block buildings both north and south could do with demolishing and sympathetic re-building, though how much that would encourage new and healthier businesses and shops I’m not qualified to say. Looking at how slow they have been to take up the new opportunities around the ideally located recent canalside developments, that appears uncertain.As things stand at the moment, as has been the case for years, no businesses are able to invest properly in any of the south High St shops, because their leases are restrictive in temporal terms, owing to the perceived Council need to be able to clear them out when there is something to take their place.Much the same reasoning has contributed to the steady eradication of the businesses behind the High St. They were bought out so that land parcels could be put together for redevelopment, and the smaller premises, if let at all, let on short term leases that make any long term contribution or investment impossible. The dereliction is deliberate, exactly as is the case with Commerce Road.The reason why Neil’s and Alan’s comments on disparate land ownership is pertinent lies with the Council’s desire to see the regeneration take place as a whole, not piecemeal. Because of that they had made it a legal requirement that ownership of the whole be under the one umbrella. For so long as that could never be achieved, planning consent was withheld. You are of course perfectly correct that I would have made my noises regardless of whether there were one or many developers, but that has not affected the situation.In this context it might be helpful to realise that for years there have NOT in fact been any developers concerned. “Brentford Town Centre Ltd” was a loose consortium of foreign investors looking to acquire a sufficient block of holdings, gain planning consent for a scheme, then auction it off piecemeal to “real” developers. The Council didn’t play that game, the consortium couldn’t deliver what the Council demanded, ergo collapse of that little band of speculators and resultant sales of parcels to yet more overseas investors.I believe that the necessary regeneration will stand more chance of gradual success if the Council approve an overall vision, and allow rebuilding incrementally within existing title blocks. It was in great part the wholesale obliterating nature of the “original” scheme that made such development impossible.So far as my own contribution is concerned, Alan has accurately identified that it is an attempt to have any redevelopment be a successful one that contributes positively to existing and traditional industry, retaining and restoring as much as possible of Brentford’s largely lost character, recognising that much of that owes more than a nod to the waterside with its traditional links to the High St, and that for sustainable growth of a living waterfront, supporting businesses must be encouraged to continue and to grow.
Nigel Moore ● 7354d46 Comments ● 7311d