Forum Topic

Ballymore revised plans for land south of the High Street

What do people think of Ballymore's 'revised' plans for the town centre redevelopment? I was depressed to see they still have a ten-storey tower on the plan. It seems to me that this development remains too high and too dense. With the recent news about the closure of Brentford Police Station (a too-high blot on our landscape that exists already) perhaps a better solution would be for Ballymore to remodel this existing block into apartments instead of building yet more towers?

Jo Francis ● 4791d23 Comments

Unfortunately all new developments just change the face of Brentford. And not just new - it probably started with the six tall towers in the Green Dragon Lane and the cheap-and-cheerful houses and blocks of flats to the South of Burford Road and East of Ealing Road.Now it continues with the proposed development to the south of High Street with typical tall buildings with the goal to sell more flats without much thinking of anything else. Very unfortunate(((.

Alex Shpinkov ● 4791d

This could quite easily be done like Madison House opposite Hounslow Bus Garage. Buildings do not have to be tall to make a profit, otherwise all those 'executive homes' would never be built.

Ian Speed ● 4791d

It just makes going through Brentford feel oppressive as the High St. isn't that wide and these tall buildings seem to close in on you. But I suspect anything near water will be too tempting for developers, and the higher they go then more people get a river/canal view, further up goes the asking price.

Vanessa Smith ● 4791d

Jo how new are the revised plans (in the last month or so?)and I think the police station block just needs to come down it is truly ugly

Chris Broadbent ● 4791d

How can you say that about the police station? Do you not appreciate the hard beauty of its post-industrial, post-modernist, pre-structuralist form created by the juxta-positioning of the police station tower block and the squat hard-set concrete reality of the Goddards shop - set off by the back drop of decaying form of the old victorian factory building across the road? You people are without insight or asthetic.My problem is with the public toilet sat in the middle of this imaginative space. What were the urban planners thinking? It just totally destroys the sight lines and the a-symmetry of the existing layout. Unless of course it was placed there in an ironic way - in which case it so works as a statement.

Alan Clark ● 4790d

The door also flies open in mid-use, but I digress.

Phil Andrews ● 4790d

I have never really taken the time to admire the squat hard-set concrete reality of the Goddard's shop - I am simply too entranced by the gorgeous stock so imaginatively displayed in the windows. Seriously though - does anybody ever buy anything in there - how does it survive?

Chris Broadbent ● 4790d

Agh Well, Chris.  Try totalling up the revenue they must receive from all the antenas stuck to the building and there in might be your answer.

Sarah Felstead ● 4790d

iframe width="562" height="314" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&t=m&layer=c&cbll=51.484036,-0.306619&panoid=DzfR2VrskXaavpcYg5U8Dg&cbp=13,194.06,,0,-9.41&ll=51.484036,-0.306619&spn=0.000002,0.001507&z=19&source=embed&output=svembed">
View Larger Map

Sarah Felstead ● 4790d

Hi Chris, Yes, I think the amended plan was submitted in July/August, there was a letter from the council inviting responses within 21 days, conveniently while lots of people were on holiday and obviously missed it! Funny old world, eh?The planning application number is P/2012/2735.I agree it would be great to lose the hideous police tower altogether, quite what the planning department were thinking when they approved that I have no idea. However, it exists and I would rather see that improved/brought into more meaningful use than have it AND another massive ten-storey block built by the canal.Ten storeys is just ridiculous and - I think that huge new development at the corner of Kew Bridge is 'only' eight?I wish I knew more about planning regs and legislation...

Jo Francis ● 4790d

I find it distasteful that the council wish to do business with a company that has directors and funding rumoured to be from a certain organisation of the past in Eire.Well worth reading the Dublin Newspapers archives about several property developers and their associates.Glenkerrin is another one.I would want to know that Ballymore and it's directors and backers are clean before entering any sort of project with them.  Come to that, any developers with dodgy backgrounds from any country ought to be looked at from an ethical point of view first.After all, are individuals not screened for various involvements when applying for various things?

Raymond Havelock ● 4788d

Confess I hadn't noticed the antennas - spectacular - from admiring the uniquely elegant architecture of the building itself and, yes, the faintly ironic contents thereof.It makes me think of those tat shops you see which say 'entry free' and I wonder whether Goddards could in fact charge for entry.Some years ago I had Goddards do a removal job: whilst waiting for the second van which they had assured me would not be required and I had assured them would be, I asked the  chaps about Goddards' many vans, mostly venerable and exceeding the number of drivers by a considerable margin. "Why so many?" I enquired. Chap looked puzzled. "Mr Goddard LIKES vans" he replied, exposing me as an idiot.

Guy Lambert ● 4786d

No Raymond, the identity of the developer/applicant isn't a material planning consideration and any attempt to take it into consideration would render any such decision vulnerable to judicial review - you can't give planning permission for Aunt Sally's Pie Shop (Aunt Sally's family having lived in Brentford for generations) but not for Big Multinational Pie Shop.

Adam Beamish ● 4786d

I know that Adam, What I am saying is there should be a pre requisite outside of planning that ensures that the developer/agent/financiers are fit an proper organisations to have dealings with.Developers funded from organised crime and spawned terrorist organisations should not be in cahoots with a local authority anywhere.The stuff unravelling in Dublin and Eire as well as Spain and Portugal is not good.But here, a blind eye is being turned.

Raymond Havelock ● 4785d

Funds obtained from organised crime and terrorist organisations would fall within the anti money laundering legislation. In a property transaction there would be a number of people / organisations who would be required to satisfy themselves that there are no breaches but I don't think that the planning department is one of them.

Chris Broadbent ● 4785d

Not sure what you're saying about Ballymore Raymond.From Googling the company and their CEO there is nothing mentioned - something about a dodgy activity around a development in E London posted by a single individual but nothing about terror organisations.

Guy Lambert ● 4785d

The Police Tower is in effect an accommodation block already..and at one time had only some 3 flats in occupation. What a waste of resources.Some great views from the rooftop though..and a window cleaning tramway!

Jim Lawes ● 4785d

And from the top of the Police Tower..you can certainly see "South of the High Street"

Jim Lawes ● 4785d

And the High Street!

Jim Lawes ● 4785d

And more!

Jim Lawes ● 4785d

And the view of the London Skyline is terrific..on a fine day.(very large image)

Jim Lawes ● 4785d

All this talk of developments reminds me of one of John Prescot's more infamous quotes – The Green Belt is a Labour initiative and we intend to build on it.

Chris Broadbent ● 4784d

You're very silent Raymond.Can you substantiate or is this just malicious tittle tattle?

Guy Lambert ● 4784d