Forum Topic

Lionel Road Development

I was handed a leaflet at Gunnersbury tube station on Friday which urges ratepayers to object to the proposed development of the Lionel Road site between Kew Bridge and Chiswick Roundabout, the new site for Brentford Football Club. What the developers are proposing is visually horrific, a monster that will be seen for miles. According to the leaflet, the proposal is for a new 20,000 seat football and rugby stadium also used for rock concerts; twelve tower blocks, 16 storeys high; almost 1,000 new flats; the density of these flats three times higher than London planning guidelines; a 160-room hotel; no new roads, transport links, schools, medical facilities and minimal parking provisions. The leaflet says the development will lead to gridlock on Chiswick High Road, Kew Bridge and Brentford High Street. It urges residents to protest to Hounslow Council (planning@hounslow.gov.uk, quoting reference, 00703/A/P11 and marking it, FAO Shane Barker, giving full name and address) and also to your local councillor. This is URGENT: the leaflet claims the consultation process ends on 28th October (Monday).

Stuart Parrott ● 4305d78 Comments

Neil, Boris Johnson will make up his mind on this issue. I have not yet contacted him on this issue but I have no doubt that others have.Boris Johnson has been very supportive of QPR's move to a new stadium and the surrounding development. Whether or not West London needs two new football stadia is an interesting question.

David Giles ● 4244d

I was thinking the same thing.

Phil Andrews ● 4248d

Is that you Taylor?

Keith Iddon ● 4248d

No light to much traffic tall buildings wait till the romanians come and there ruining yr streets I wonder if yr whinge then

sue hird ● 4248d

Well said

sue hird ● 4248d

You don't give up do you David. I bet you have been on the phone to Big Bad Boris whinging like mad.

Neil Chippendale ● 4248d

Get life

sue hird ● 4248d

Just because they are official documents, that does not mean they are correct.

David Giles ● 4249d

Anthony, that was my point, thank you. If you dont know, then dont presume,these were official documents, not something glibly spouted over a pint in the pub, I am going to rest my case now on this forum.

Raymond Randall ● 4258d

Agreed, but how many of them do?  If we are truthful there were some on both sides of the discussion who patently did not have a clue what they were talking about.  Sadly it is the nature of adversarial party politics that many of its participants are reduced to mere lobby fodder and some seem only too happy with this arrangement.David would have us believe that all the Conservative councillors understood what they were doing and all the Labour councillors didn't, but such a blinkered attitude frankly only serves to illustrate my point.

Phil Andrews ● 4258d

If you are doing your job as a member of the planning committee correctly you take the trouble to visit locations on the agenda that you are not familiar with. I used to spend a Sunday prior to the planning meeting visiting various places with another member to look at the report and see what was what, it could be very informative and helpful. It can help to put things into perspective and we found it's often what isn't in the officer's report rather than what is that can alter things.

Vanessa Smith ● 4258d

Unlike you to spot a flaw, Anthony.

Guy Lambert ● 4258d

If you have seen an studied the drawing and models presented, and are able to see beyond the gloss of architectural artists impressions  and read the proposed specifications which are buried away in minutiae then you will be able to see that the whole development is flawed.Your accusation of "false objection" is also flawed.  There is no more proof that this will be all lovely and perfect any more than than observations that it won't.So on that basis just as many approving are also false as no one knows what it will end up like.Which is why anyone voting for approval ends up so flawed. The whole thing is far too complex to be voted through and approved in one big lump in just four hours with councillors who don't even know which is  Griffin Park and Carville Hall Park is let alone where Lionel road is.I was astonished in conversation with a voting councillor who thought the site was actually Carville Hall Park until corrected ! That for me sums the whole thing up.

Anthony Waller ● 4258d

"Still, Councillor Cadbury is free to go around knocking on doors safe in the knowledge that she can tell everyone that she didn't vote for this development!!"In Chiswick, yes.In Brentford and elsewhere in the constituency where supporters are likely to outnumber objectors she can point out that she was always herself in favour of it.You call it dishonesty but...

Phil Andrews ● 4259d

"none of the Conservative Councillors expressed prefaced their questions by stating their opposition to the scheme."That's not strictly true David. Councillor Bradley Fisher was warned on several occasions by the Chair to stop expressing oppinions, which were clearly against the application, during questions to the applicants. The fact is that all councillors on this committee voted according to party lines with the exception of Councillor Jabbal (and good on him) and the Chair, who's vote was not required. Pre-determination was at the forefront and there for all to see.Still, Councillor Cadbury is free to go around knocking on doors safe in the knowledge that she can tell everyone that she didn't vote for this development!!

Andrew Sibley ● 4259d

Bravo for David Giles for his sanity and admirable desire to protect what is a lovely and unique area of Thameside-West London from absurd and ugly over-development. The entire scheme is a horlicks and will diminish rather than improve the quality of life for those of us who live here. Longer ago than I care to admit I used to watch the Bees as a schoolboy, when we couldn't afford to get into Fulham or QPR. Great fun, all power to the club, shame their inspirational manager is off to Wigan, but in those days the crowd was small, as it is today. What price a 20,000 seat football stadium that is in the wrong place, and will not be filled, no chance! White elephants spring to mind...

Stuart Parrott ● 4259d

These groups may or may not be truly representative, dependant on whether they just take stock of only the opinions of whoever attends their meetings, or do they carry out a much wider canvass of the whole community taking great care to encompass all socio economic groups and locations. ie, Brentford consists of far more than, with due respect, only Green Dragon Lane residents who I appreciate will bear some burden.  Eventually BCC will be asked to justify their stance with evidence of how they came to their decision. Maybe ther'e right, and maybe they aren't all conservatives.

Raymond Randall ● 4259d

david, as an example of exagerations  i really do have a big issue with BCC. did you look at their Objection, and could you  acknowledge my reasoning that things that  cannot be sustantiated, and fact, should not have assigned to an official document and hearing.BCC stated that  " poor dquality of the design of the hotel and residential development....poor quality...of amenity space."This is a classic example of an false objection thought out of mid air and bias, as there is no evidence as yet relating to the quality, appearance, materials, or view from a distance of these structures. Also, the visual presentation from the Objectors, displayed on screen, a view fron way over across Kew Bridge showing a monstrous brown solid block to represent the tower blocks / hotel, whick totally mis represented any possible impression of what would actually be constructed, Totally deceptive.Transparency and honesty in this debate please

Raymond Randall ● 4259d

Adam,Thank you for that. Political balance is of course necessary. I am grateful to you for pointing out a certain bias on my part !I spoke and wrote to some of the Conservative Councillors before the meeting and they were very careful not to express a view either way. In contrast to some of the Labour Councillors who prefaced their questions to the applicants by stating their support for the scheme, none of the Conservative Councillors expressed prefaced their questions by stating their opposition to the scheme. It is important to take into account the serious objections made by non-party political residents groups who represent many thousands of local people who live close to the proposed scheme. Members of these groups will have found it unnecessary to submit objections individually as they quite understandably felt they were represented by their local residents' group, society or association.The objectors included: 1. Brentford Community Council2. Chiswick High Road Action Group3. Strand on the Green Association4. Friends of Stile Hall Gardens5. The Kew Society6. The Kew Residents Association7. The Kew Bridge Owner's Association8. The Isleworth Society9. The West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society10. The Thornton-Mayfield Residents Association11. The Temaire Place Residents Management Company 12. The Green Dragon Lane Housing Cooperative13. The Grove Park Group (whose objections were mysteriously omitted from the Officers' Report).14. The Isleworth SocietyImportant national and local organisations that objected included:15. London Borough of Richmond on Thames16. English Heritage (whose objections will be a matter for consideration by the Secretary of State in accordance with Circular 02/09)17. The Georgian Group18. The Victorian Society19. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew20. Kew Bridge Engines Trust (The Steam Museum)21. The London Parks and Gardens TrustThe Greater London Authority commented critically on the Report but did not lodge an objection at this stage perhaps because the planning application will now be referred to the Mayor in accordance with the Mayor of London Order 2008.

David Giles ● 4259d

"However, I got the impression that the Labour Councillors had made up their minds already."That's the bit of your post I have an issue with David.  It's not an impression I disagree with, but equally to me anyone present or watching would have got the impression that the Conservative Councillors had also made up their minds already.That's not meant as a criticism of them I should stress, but just meant to counter any political bias to your post.

Adam Beamish ● 4259d

Adam and Raymond,Unlike some other posters, I never try to hide my Conservative political affiliations although I am in no way an official spokesperson for the Conservative Party. I have been known to disagree with the Conservative Party position on many occasions. On this particular issue, I agree with the five Conservative Councillors who voted to reject the application on grounds most articulately expressed by the objectors from non-party political residents groups such as the Strand on the Green Residents Association, the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society, the Brentford Community Council and the Kew Society. The representative of the Kew Society was a Chartered Surveyor who certainly knew what he was talking about. The representative of the Brentford Community Councillor was a retired Chief Town Planner. It was not up to the Councillors on either side to make or break the case for the application. The role of the Councillors was to listen, ask questions and make an informed judgements on the basis of the evidence. However, I got the impression that the Labour Councillors had made up their minds already.  Being a local resident for many years, I do have a bias in favour of protection of the local environment and quality of life in Brentford, Chiswick, Kew and Ealing which will be the areas most affected by this development. I will continue to object to this development and I will be urging the Mayor of London and if necessary the Secretary of State to call it in and reject it.

David Giles ● 4259d

Aside from the planning law issues (which obviously you understand) it seems to me that the objectors lost all credibility with their nonsensical and often laughable  exaggeration of the issues

Guy Lambert ● 4259d

Raymond, that's not particularly helpful or accurate as most planning decisions are based, at least in part, upon subjective judgements.  If this planning application was required to satisfy in full every relevant planning policy (which is the nearest you'll get to facts when it comes to planning considerations), rather than a balancing act between the benefits and the harm, it would be refused, so you've rather shot yourself down in flames I'm afraid.

Adam Beamish ● 4259d

David. you really shouldnt display such obvious bias. Maybe you should re run the whole evening. It was like a panto, and caused great laughter and chuckles against BOTH sides.If your side were to stick to FACTS such as problems at Gunnersbury Station, err on a Saturday afternoon, then you would gain some respectexample: The Brentford Community Assoc. Objection (page 55-56 ) contained content which would have had to be retracted and would have shot them down in flames,had they been cross examined.  Debate Facts not unfounded opinion

Raymond Randall ● 4259d

David,So now for your latest roll of the dice you try to undermine anyone who didn't attend the meeting ?.  Doesn't the irony of your constantly one-sided Conservative Councillor supporting posts ever dawn on you ?.  No-one on this forum is openly displaying their political colours more than yourself.  No doubt you will come up with some political spin if Boris and Eric don't call the application in ?.Does any Councillor who sits on Planning Committee have to openly demonstrate that they had a detailed knowledge of the local area ?.  Do the Conservative Councillors who sit on the Planning Committee openly display a detailed knowledge of Hounslow or Feltham when determining applications there ?.  Again, my question isn't a politically shaped one, but no doubt you will try to answer it with some political spin.For what it's worth, my personal view is that it was obvious from the nature of the questions some Labour Councillors asked that they supported the scheme regardless of the answers they were going to receive, and that was rather exposed when on at least one occasion a Councillor actually said, before posing a question of supposed concern, that it was an 'excellent' scheme.  But equally it was obvious from the delivery, manner and nature of the questions asked by some of the Conservative Councillors that they objected to the scheme.I don't think the Conservative Councillors behaved badly as some posters suggest, apart from when Councillor O'Reilly (who whenever I have encountered her before has always been professional and reasonable) publicly criticised the Officers, which I felt was unreasonable because at the end of the day this application is all about a balancing act and whilst she (and I) might not agree with the Officer's conclusion, I don't think it's right to publicly criticise Officers just because they apply different weight to the various pros and cons of the scheme.

Adam Beamish ● 4259d

They were embarrassing David shame as the objectors raised some good points

Chris White ● 4259d

Phil,The last minute resignation of the Brentford Councillors from the Committee was unprecedented and highly irregular but not illegal.  It is a great pity that the Brentford Councillors stood down thus depriving Brentford residents representation by their own Councillors on the Committee.I was actually at the meeting and am not dependent on the webcast or second reports of the meeting. The proponents of the scheme put up a smooth case for their deeply flawed scheme. The objectors from the local residents groups made a number of very good points which the proponents failed to answer. The Labour Councillors failed to demonstrate that they had considered the matter thoroughly and that they had a detailed knowledge of the Kew Bridge/ Chiswick area. They gave the impression that they wished to support the application in order to support Brentford FC politically rather than on sound planning grounds. All of the Conservative Councillors raised good questions. The Chiswick Councillors and Councillors Brad Fisher and Sheila O'Reilly demonstrated a clear understanding of the planning issues and the effect of this scheme on local residents.Were you at the meeting yourself Phil ?,

David Giles ● 4260d

So you keep telling us David.  But the Brentford-based councillors stood down for a very good reason and it is a tad silly to keep reminding us that they didn't vote for the application when they weren't sitting on the Committee.If you really believe that the Chiswick councillors had a good grasp of the issues involved then I would suggest you take another look at the webcast.  Embarrassing doesn't even come close.

Phil Andrews ● 4260d

It is is noteworthy that all the Chiswick Councillors on the Committtee voted to reject the application and that there were no Brentford Councillors on the Committee to vote won way or another.The decision was made by Councillors from outside Brentford and Chiswick, some of whom were from the other end of the Borough and obviously had very litle knowledge of Brentford or Chiswick.

David Giles ● 4260d

It was quite obvious last night that the Labour councillors simply did not understand the issues involved because they live in and represent wards in the west of the borough far away from Brentford and Chiswick.There are no Brentford Councillors on the Planning Committee. The three Brentford Councillors at had been in the Committee, including Councillor Ruth Cadbury, resigned very recently and were replaced  by Councillors from other wards who then all voted in favour of the application. Very strange.This is murky to say the least -particularly in view  Councillor Cadbury's recent statements . Maybe she was removed because she could not be trusted to vote in favour of the application ? And if she had go, the other Brentford Councillors had to go also.The three Chiswick Councillors on the Committee voted to reject the application. They know the area best as they all live locally

David Giles ● 4264d

The Borough of Brentford and Chiswick should never have been included in the larger Hounslow Borough.There was no division in the old borough, until the powers that be decided on having larger boroughs and decided to split the old borough in-half. So some blame can be attached to them, but in recent times any division has been created by fortress Lampton with some of there ridiculous decisions like closing the Chiswick Day Center and CPZ,s by Stealth even though public consultations defeated by vote on two occasions.Lets face it a councilor from Feltham or Bedfont may have a outline about Brentford and Chiswick but wont have the detail knowledge of Councilors in the actual area.Last nights vote was political, Labour against Conservatives, apart for one councilor who must have forgot why they were there as it was past their bedtime

Paul Allen ● 4264d

Nimby Chiswick.....you should follow the example of Scotland and go independent from LBH...the 33rd Borough.  I am being serious, because there is a divide and I achnowledge that

Raymond Randall ● 4264d

Boris wants more affordable housing and none is included in this scherme because the stadium will cost over £70 million to build. Brentford FC is currently losing £5 million a year and desperately needs to maximise the revenue from the sale of the sites, some of which I understand it does not yet own.

David Giles ● 4264d

One Conservative voted for. Strange that they want housing but not in their back yard. Ellis brought that point up very well.

Mike Williams ● 4264d

good try,,,,MASSIVE  YES......except from Cons, but that was expected

Raymond Randall ● 4264d

.brilliant result, clear majority, boris needs the housing figures

Raymond Randall ● 4264d

YES. Lets now see what Boris says. As he is a Tory I presume he will knock it back.

Neil Chippendale ● 4264d

Hopefully, it will be a No. This is a planning issue and the proosed scheme is in breach of the GLA's and Hounslow's planning guidelines.The area around Lionel Road, Kew Bridge and the A4/M$ and North and South Circular Roads intersections is already congested.It is not about football. It is not about party politics. It is about the local environment and the rights of local residents to a decent quality of life.

David Giles ● 4265d

Stuart, with  due respect. Any area of London at rush hour suffers delays, as does any city and town in the country, and no even tfl don't feel there is a major issue. As to liken the build to the density of Hong Kong really, not where I have been there it is not.

Mike Williams ● 4265d

Well Jim gloom and doom merchant it's Brentford moving not Chelsea the crowds will remain the same,my grand parents lived in Burford House they had no problems wnen the crowds where in five figures,it's just Chiswick people yet again wanting their own little way.

Robert A Field ● 4265d

I'm very familiar with the geography thank you. There are some 9000 new homes in construction, planning, or recently constructed in Brentford. Clearly that has an impact on congestion but the reactions to this one development especially from Chiswick residents are hysterical in the extreme.We need new homes in London - desperately - and we're all going to have to put up with changes we wouldn't necessarily choose. This change is IMO on balance positive and will create a very positive impression, just as the St George's development around Kew Bridge - also widely opposed at the time - has.Oh, and I quite frequently drive up Lionel Road South and yes it gets congested in the rush hour. However I've never once had a problem exiting onto the A4 (M4 is different because the slip road is jammed) because there is a 'keep clear' zone which is well respected.

Guy Lambert ● 4265d

(this was a scene at a previous event at the Civic Centre)

Jim Lawes ● 4265d

Bravo Stuart.Some of these contributors seem not to be familiar with the local road lay-outs and regular congestions.  Local knowledge required and 'O' level Geography!.Is it true that a 160 bed Hotel is planned for the triangle too?

Jim Lawes ● 4266d

Mike, Pathetic? Wearing your Brentford FC scarf, no doubt, you don't give a coherent answer to my point that the additional flats, on a density of scale that rivals Hong Kong, will add to the traffic congestion of what is already one of West London's worst bottlenecks. All of us support the Bees, fingers crossed for the Ch'ship, but rotten over-development remains rotten over-development.

Stuart Parrott ● 4266d

Stuart, Please go to the brentfordfc.co.uk website go to the club heading and tag down to the lionel road info. The images shown are hardly oppressive which also include a view including the steam museum the flats do not dominate the area. You maybe still viewing the original images from some months ago that have been altered to reduce the height of the flats. However the old images, not the new ones are still being used to drive througn objections. According to tfl the impact on traffic will be minimal as can be seen in the 200 page + documentation from the planning team. Your original comment however was about the time taken on the 237 and 267 bus.

Mike Williams ● 4266d

You miss the point: 1,000 extra flats, or however many the profit-driven developers eventually cram sardine-like into their ugly high-rise stumps onto the too-small site behind Kew Bridge Station, must lead to worse traffic congestion, making it harder to access Brentford, Hounslow, Isleworth, Kew etc. On traffic grounds alone, the scheme is ill-advised. The Glasgow-style high rise eyesores behind the Steam Museum should be a reminder to Hounslow officials and councillors of their responsibility not to inflict further rotten planning decisions on those of us who live here. And don't get me started on the unimaginitive Ballymore proposals for the High Street, making historic Brentford look like a dreary suburb of Milton Keynes...

Stuart Parrott ● 4266d

Alex I think its about 910 flats. If you look at the brentfordfc.co.uk website and go to club then tag down to Lionel road it will bring up all you need to know along with the impressions of the build, which to be honest I would rather live next to that than a recycling plant.

Mike Williams ● 4266d

720 car spaces? Is it for residents? And how many flats?

Alex Shpinkov ● 4266d

Looks like Stuart is not talking about traffic during the match days, but about regular every day traffic caused by huge number of new residents.

Alex Shpinkov ● 4266d

Stuart, there are only 720 car spaces at Lionel Road. 720 cars leaving and arriving in the area from North, South, East and West over a period of time will not be noticed.  The buses numbers are being increased on some routes. In 2015 the trains will be extended to 10 coaches from 8,the extra numbers on the trains will not be noticed. So by your argument LBH shouldn't fully use a current brown field site only being used at present for waste transfer and distribution plus a builders yard to help a club who have been around longer than yourself in the area ( over a hundred years ) and provide much needed housing. Just because you are fed up with a slow journey on the bus. Pathetic! I'm sure the Council Members will take that into account tomorrow !! Tip........... get off the bus and walk if it's that slow and whilst your walking think of the bigger picture for the Borough and the positives for much needed housing in London.

Mike Williams ● 4266d

Brentford play Saturday fortnightly for 9 months a year and the occasional Tuesday night so rush hour is hardly affected.I have more concern as I have rugby in Richmond on Saturdays.

Chris White ● 4266d

Exaggeration? On traffic grounds alone, the scheme should be rejected. The Chiswick roundabout to Kew Bridge is already one of the most congested roads in West London so it's planning madness to build all those flats right on top of an area that is already gridlocked. And, no, I don't live in Chiswick, but Brentford, and am tired of wasting my life sitting on the 237 or 267 trying to get home from Gunnersbury tube at evening rush hour.

Stuart Parrott ● 4266d

take as an example the GW4 Barretts dev between the rail line and Gt West Rd. That has taken several years and still has a way to go. They build at a pace that provides for some income to finance the next phase, The worst aspect to Chiswick residents oppo has been one word...EXAGERATION

Raymond Randall ● 4266d

David. Just to put you straight yet again. The build plan for the flats is over 7 -8 years. Rgds

Mike Williams ● 4267d

But the flats will go up.  And given Mr Benham's massive gamble, he will want the flats to go up as fast as possible.

David Giles ● 4267d

you are over dramatising the situation, as are all the Chiswick objectors. the flats will only go up over the course of several years, so the 'possible' effect would be ABSORBED as it progresses. The same will happen with services ie, doctors, schools. As the demand increases so will the response from LBH They will have to provide.

Raymond Randall ● 4268d

But true.

David Giles ● 4268d

But true.

David Giles ● 4268d

Drivel

Guy Lambert ● 4268d

It will be viible from most of Chiswick and will cause massive disruption and gridlock in West Chiswick, on the  North and South Circular Roads, on Kew Bridge Road, on the A4 and on Chiswick High Road.

David Giles ● 4268d

It's visible from parts of Chiswick.Furthermore it will interfere with views of the exceptionally lovely Vantage West and cast a shadow over the alley behind the swimming pool.

Guy Lambert ● 4278d

"in this already crowded and unique location."Ye gods, if this is a description of the current Lionel Road site which, IIRC, it a rubbish tip bordered by  a rail line and the 'oh so attractive' A4/M4 I would hate to see what makes for a bad location.

Nigel Brooks ● 4278d

Where there is Boris, there is hope !

David Giles ● 4278d

Err, I hate to point this out but even if the application is resolved to be approved it would be subject to Boris/the GLA agreeing to let LBH approve rather than calling it in...

Adam Beamish ● 4279d

''widespread opposition from thousands of local residents''.that is an exageration. the oppo is from a few close by chiswick residents, the posh roads adjacent to Kew Green, and a hard core of Liberal based groups......who object to any modern. progress in general. Two brentford community groups are Liberal dominated with addresses in such as The Butts, Hardly the voice thousands of Brentford locals. Lionel Road is in Brentford and for Brentford people to decide. If the application fails, is deferred or delayed, then the BCC will be taken over  at their  next election, by  real supporters of our town. They wont be able to avoid that democratic process defeating their attitude

Raymond J Randall ● 4280d

I have no objection to a low rise development including social and affordable housing in sympathy with the housing on the other side of Chiswick High Road but monsterous tower blocks containing over 900 luxury apartments are simply not appropriate in this already crowded and unique location.The Council should refuse this application and invite the owner of Brentford FC, Matthew Benham, to submit a new application including a stadium and social and affordable houses and apartment blocks no higher than five storeys high. That would seem to be the sensible thing for a socialist local authority to do.

David Giles ● 4292d

It is interesting to see that the new Labour Party Prospective Parliamentary Candidate Councillor Ruth Cadbury says that this development is "not a done deal".She has obviously noted that all the main residents groups in Brentford and West Chiswick oppose it including Brentford Community Council. She is also probably aware of widespread objections from thousands of local residents.Ruth Cadbury has considerable experience of planning mattersd both as a Councilor and in a professional capacity. If she thinks it is unsound, then her views will carry a lot of weight.If she opposes it,  the rest of the Labour Councillors may feel they will have to oppose it also. If that happens, the planning application will be rejected.

David Giles ● 4292d

Theyll be telling us Disney are building a theme park there next

Chris White ● 4298d

All it would have taken is a search in the the search box but the NIMBY's of Chiswick and Strand on the Green are waging a campigan against the development that is out of proportion to the actual application. They want that part of Kew Bridge left derelict so their life style remains unaltered.

Neil Chippendale ● 4298d

Hes right though unlike the leaflet.If you enjoy watching the sunset over then bully for you

Chris White ● 4299d

No one's saying that Guy...you really must try to reign in your rampant wit.

Keith Iddon ● 4303d

Quite right.Keep Brentford derelict

Guy Lambert ● 4303d

Thanks Sarah. If the charge against me is pure pedantry, i.e. that I came to the debate unacceptably late, then I can live with that. The point is to stand up to the planners and don't let them get away with future horrors. Remember that planners and developers did more damage to the London skyline in the 60s than the Luftwaffe; and that Covent Garden was only saved from the bulldozers by a whisker. Agree with Keith: we must gear up for the fight to stop Ballymore turning the High Street into Croydon.

Stuart Parrott ● 4303d

John clearly spends all his waking hours on the Brentford forum and gets easily irritated when someone like Stuart makes a comment that he feels is valid and importent, even though it has been done to death over the past few months.Perhaps those of us that spend more time working and less time on local news sites should send our comments to John to vet before we post them.Thank you Stuart for speaking out and bringing this to our attention again.... Keep calm and drink tea John, you don't own this site!! (or do you and i missed it in an earlier discussion)

Sarah Thomas ● 4303d

It does seem that the stadium will be almost an add-on to the flats...I think however we should be more concerned about the monoliths proposed for the centre of the town.

Keith Iddon ● 4304d

Had you cared to look at previous threads or type in "Lionel Road" in the box at the top of the forum page you would have discovered that there have been several threads on this topic in recent months and that what you chose to post added nothing new to the debate.

John Connelly ● 4305d

Where have I been? Absent abroad, since you inquire. Are you seriously suggesting that my lateness in catching up with the local debate disqualifies me from commenting on what is a hideously inappropriate development, one that will blight Brentford and Kew forever? Brentford FC should be ashamed of itself for trying to impose this ill-designed eyesore on local residents, also blighting the view from Kew Gardens, a World Heritage site.

Stuart Parrott ● 4305d

Yawn! Look on this site and you will discover that the development proposed has already been debated to death. Where have you been meantime?

John Connelly ● 4305d