Forum Topic

BRENTFORDS NEW STADIUM ?

Brentfords latest update on the building of their new stadium on the Lionel Road site is the same as it was last February.Stating that unless there is an upturn in the property market it is on hold. To me that seems strange considering all the development that is currently going on in Brentford.Flats going up in Orchard Road as well as Glenhurst Road, the GW2 site and only in the last week the old Alfa Laval site getting the go ahead for development. All very strange.

Mark Welland ● 6167d22 Comments

Is it the possible over supply that is worrying Barretts and they have the other sites in Brentford that they may wish to sell first.

Neil Chippendale ● 6166d

It's not Barratts though, the developer is St. George's.  I don't know the reasons, but I suspect St. George's are concentrating on their Kew Bridge site first.

Adam Beamish ● 6166d

The developer of the possible new stadium is in fact Barratt. St George's have strong links with the club and support both it and the community sports trust.There is supposed to be an update in January over Lionel Road.

Kath Richardson ● 6166d

Kath is correct. As part of my collection of Brentford documents I have the Barratts/BFC proposal.

Neil Chippendale ● 6166d

I stand corrected.  Apologies (especially to Barratts given I am currently working with them on another scheme elsewhere !).

Adam Beamish ● 6166d

Shame your not working on the BFC plan, it would be great to see some/any progress.

Neil Chippendale ● 6166d

I have not seen any evidence of ongoing work in recent months on the tower on Barratts' GWR development. I would be very surprised if they were to contemplate any new large developments in the area before this is built out.I also note that the ownership structure at Brentford is subject to change, and I suspect the final outcome here will have a bearing on future plans.

John Connelly ● 6166d

I have not seen any evidence of ongoing work in recent months on the tower on Barratts' GWR development. I would be very surprised if they were to contemplate any new large developments in the area before this is built out.I also note that the ownership structure at Brentford is subject to change, and I suspect the final outcome here will have a bearing on future plans.

John Connelly ● 6166d

Matthew Benham, the proposed new owner, is committed to the project. The takeover should go through very soon.Lets hope the Chinese keep gambling so he can inject lots of money into the team

Neil Chippendale ● 6165d

Construction on the tower has ceased and the structure has been 'wrapped to protect element vulnerable parts of the structure. This is usually only done for long term lay ups.Barratts are in deep trouble at present like several of their counterparts.Think this is real reason for BFC delay.Developers are in possesion of far too many sites and to claw back as much cash as possible are putting in wholly unsuitable plans with the usual poor standards.UK Developers, mainstream and small, are still building crude structures to barely meet standards which are third world compared to most European counterparts. Profits are still proportionately too high for the quality compromise of the product. Govt needs to get so much tougher about corporate developers and the overinfluence of dictatorial architects with too much network influence and law firms interested in maximising corporate client profits. Then we might see a real difference in housing and development quality.

Michael Brandt ● 6164d

So the Freddie Barrette penis is on hold; good it should never have been given the go ahead anyway and I personally hope the new ground does not go ahead; Brentford have a ground and they should develop 'it'.

Philip Walsh ● 6164d

I am sure the aspiration for a new ground at Brentford will continue for the foreseeable future. The current plan depends on a property market sufficiently buoyant to provide the funding for the new stadium from the profit made on the residential development. This clearly is not the situation today, and it would be foolish to attempt to put a timescale on when these conditions will return.

John Connelly ● 6164d

Factual basis for those comments Michael ?.  Having worked for Taylor Wimpey (and being made redundant at the height of the recession) and subsequently working with numerous developers on numerous schemes whilst obviously things aren't as rosy as they were, I can't agree that any major developer is in 'deep trouble'.Dictatorial architects !?! - can't say I've ever come across any !.Whilst I'm not a building control expert my knowledge of the various regulations suggests they're pretty extensive, and planning policies and guidance is certainly extensive these days, the amount of hoops a developer has to jump through is extreme - with any planning application seeking residential, leisure or commercial development having to be accompanied by a plethora of specialist reports that the average person in the street hasn't got a clue about.  So I can't agree with your comments.Financial profit or loss isn't (and never should be and never will be) a material planning consideration, nor is the identity of the applicant - why should the national planning system make getting planning permission any harder for the likes of Barratts, Taylor Wimpey etc. then for a single individual who makes their living from property development ?.

Adam Beamish ● 6164d

why should the national planning system make getting planning permission any harder for the likes of Barratts, Taylor Wimpey etc. then for a single individual who makes their living from property development ?.Perhaps for their capacity to offer larger inducements in order to get planning permission for unsuitable or unsustainable building projects might be a reason.

Philip Walsh ● 6164d

'Larger inducements' ? - what do you mean exactly ?.  Financial contributions perhaps ? - the detail of which usually comes from the Council's own adopted policies/Supplement Planning Guidance/Development Plan Document which is (quite rightly) the same for all developers ?.

Adam Beamish ● 6164d

Adam, I've worked in the property development business at the top end for decades and started in the construction business.How can you have worked in it and not noticed what really goes on?The dealings with councils, politicians, landowners businesses is riddled with sweeteners and the plethora of rules and regulations simply plays money into the game. Of course it helps if you are a freemason or very well connected and that, I'm afraid is what makes the difference between a corporate developer and an individual.Rules and regulations are for mugs and to keep the game closed. And it is a game, Sometimes you lose or have to be seen to lose, it better for the next scheme. Obviously, you are probably too decent a person for them to bring you into their inner fold.( Not a put down, In fact something to be proud of.)Mr Brandt seems to me to be pretty much bang on and there is nothing there that I did not experience during my career. As for the Barratt tower well, you can see the mothballing from the road.

Anthony Waller ● 6163d

Anthony,Have to say in over 12 years of working at both local authorities and in the private sector (dealing with all kinds of planning matters ranging from very minor developments to multi-million pound schemes) what you suggest goes on is the exception rather than the norm.  I currently work on projects for several 'corporate developers' as you call them, with my employer being the planning consultants who do all the discussions/negotiations with Council Officers etc, and we have never been asked or never offered any kind of 'sweetener'.  Politicians/Councillors tend to be, quite correctly, extremely cautious and guarded, and if anything, in my experience, even though it should make no difference, sometimes Councillors are actually unreasonably anti corporate developers when it comes to making decisions on planning applications.Maybe in the past what you are suggesting went on, in fact no, I'll correct myself, I know it has gone on, but I've not seen any evidence of it at all in recent years.  And don't think I'm too 'decent' or naive to not see it.

Adam Beamish ● 6163d

Post Clay Cross. this has all become so secretive that those at the coal face would never be involved, they will do just what they are briefed to do and not to question it.Lawyers, directors, sometimes distant shareholders, and sometimes the links are so tenuous as to not be able to prove a thing.Back in the early 80's it was councillors and associates using wives maiden names to get consents and contracts. Hounslow, Ealing and Brent were top of the table for that.It's just got more sophisticated, even more closed and a lot harder to detect.

Anthony Waller ● 6162d

I think the reference to Clay Cross (1972-1974 for those of you not knowledgeable about the subject) and the early 1980's reference shows how this kind of thing is in the past.Not that I'm suggesting it has been completely eradicated, every now and then there's an Ombudsman case etc. reported in the Journal of Planning and Environmental Law where something 'fishy' has clearly gone on, but that is the exception rather than the norm.Given that both myself and the Partners in my firm regularly negotiate legal agreements with large financial implications on behalf of corporate developers with Local Authorities, either we are the only firm who behaves 'decently', I'm lying to everyone and really we're up to no good, or it really doesn't happen.

Adam Beamish ● 6162d

I don't say that there was any definite financial or other irregularity's over the Barrett  building but as I've said before; the objections to building of that hight at Kew Bridge and Gunnersbury roundabout are well known and have always been linked to the hight of comparable buildings in the locality; a situation totally undermined by this development.As for the football grounds proposed move! how come its already discussed as a reality; who has been consulted, who will be consulted. As for as I can see some people have already made up their minds and the opinions of the rest of us count for nothing!

Philip Walsh ● 6157d

I know that minds have not been made up regards the development. Residents in Chiswick have already been vocal in opposition to the scheme. When it first came out a certain Chiswick Cllr was very quick to say he wasn't in favour of it. So no it is not done and dusted.

Neil Chippendale ● 6156d

Philip,Until a planning application is made for a development on the site where Brentford wish to locate their new stadium it remains only an aspiration.If a planning application is submitted it will have to be considered on its merits. If nothing ever emerges on this site it will not be the first time that Brentford's  aspiration for a new stadium has gone unfulfilled.This thread began as a request for an update on the proposal to build this development near Kew Bridge station. Nothing anyone has said in consequence negates the need for a proper planning process to be completed before anything is concretised.

John Connelly ● 6156d