Poor reporting on front page article re. Kew Bridge development
To quote the front page article about the Kew Bridge site :-----------But this time the Council officers got into serious discussions with the architects behind closed doors. The result was some modifications to the appearance of the building. Now they are again recommending approval.But it still remains too big. Those who had argued against the first scheme at the inquiry wrote to the Council this summer to say so.We will see whether their voice is heard on September 16th. The meeting is open to the public to attend so we can all see firsthand. Perhaps the committee will feel that any scheme is better than none, or perhaps they will feel that this really is a unique site on the edge of the river, which needs a really outstanding solution, even if we have to wait for it.If so the eco warriors may have the site to themselves for some time yet. -------------- Maybe it's just me but I object to a supposedly 'neutral' website making something akin to a statement of fact - "But it still remains too big" when this is simply a subjective viewpoint. I've never read any part of the website suggesting that Modgen isn't really that smelly, or that the stench is definitely overpowering, because the author has no factual basis for saying so, so why make a definitive statement that a proposed development is 'too big'.I have absolutely no professional links to the Kew Bridge development, I should add. I simply don't think it's a fair and balanced article, it makes assertions based upon the individual's opinion, if would be entirely different if the article was simply reporting what Brentford Community Council or IBAC/SDC had formally said about their views of the proposal.
Adam Beamish ● 6106d2 Comments