Brentford Waterside Strategy
We’ve sent a letter to Brendon Walsh, Director Regeneration, Economic Development and Environment on the need for a waterside strategy in Brentford:
I am writing on behalf of Brentford Chamber of Commerce to firmly support the letter (ref BCC761) recently sent to you by Brentford Community Council urging for a waterside infrastructure.
Brentford Chamber has several members who either work with boats, on boats or live in them and all who live in Brentford respect the added value that the waterside gives us as community.
Over the last years with all the plans that have come forward we have not seen any sensible attempt at developing a waterside strategy that protects and supports those who work in or around boat yards or ancillary businesses, those who wish to moor in Brentford (permanent or visiting) at various locations, or residents who wish to see more of their waterside heritage.
We are concerned with the impact that developments such as Ballymore, Watermans Park and others large and small will have on the existing boat yards and dwellers.
There is no need to repeat what Denis Browne has said but we would urgently request you to start on a meaningful consultation regarding the waterside with all the relevant stakeholders.
The letter from Denis Browne of Brentford Community Council which goes into considerably more detail says:
• The Brentford Community Council have been very supportive of the Council in previous years while the Brentford Area Action Plan was being developed, and have been enthusiastic contributors to the policies on: waterside use and businesses; protection of the waterside heritage, and redevelopment of the High Street. It is all the more disappointing that these policies are seemingly now disregarded, and a new set of Councillors and environmental and planning officers apparently oblivious to the work of their predecessors.
• We are aware of considerable disquiet and alarm within the waterside related community in Brentford at the apparent total lack of communication or consultation regarding the detail planning and development of the waterside within the current development area south of the High Street. There has been no Statutory Consultation, and the year-long “workshops” – including waterside and heritage groups – run by Ballymore seemingly as a purely PR exercise, saw no material additions or amendments to their original plans.
• It is this area that gave rise to Brentford’s position historically and most of its waterborne heritage resides there, to be lost forever if detailed and considered plans backed up by S.106 proposals to developers for its retention, are not imposed.
• The Council were reminded of the Blue Ribbon Network policies of the London Plan when the now approved Ballymore scheme was presented to the Planning Committee in November 2014; these demand that the design for all such schemes MUST start from the water.
• At the time, the Committee and public were assured that Ballymore would be urged to develop their proposals for the waterside via active engagement with the individuals and groups affected, and yet to date all efforts to engage with them to this end have met with a blank wall. We feel that the Council are failing to uphold their reassurances in this vital area.
• To read that the Council’s recent approval in principle of CPO’s to include removal of mooring rights only adds to the grave concerns of boaters, related businesses and interested residents. The most recent press release concerning Watermans Park – inaccurate as it is in places – reinforces the growing disquiet that the Council is turning its back on the single most historically characteristic element of the area.
• There are three centres of heritage currently under threat by lack of detail forethought and planning for the needs of the town residents, waterside businesses, long term moorers and visitors that would wish to use waterside facilities. “Presumption in favour” of some retention of activity is not enough. Detail planning and meaningful action is needed now before it is too late.
• The three main areas of concern are:
a) Workhouse Dock – Previously the boatyard and moorings run by Brentford Yacht & Boat Co and Brentford Marine Services. Currently this is derelict, deliberately made so by the developer, but shown on the plans as an open water space with visitor pontoons and some moorings. This begs the question of the waterside facilities, including a launch slipway for small craft, that will be needed for visitors, and perhaps permanently moored vessels; the tidal grid that was invaluable for out-of-water hull work; over- side sewage disposal to shore; water supplies; power; communications; access, and security, being some of the considerations to be foreseen and planned for. These facilities were specifically protected under the BAAP. This water space is wholly within the developers, Ballymore’s remit.
b) Malthouse Wharf – Currently operated by Malthouse Marine Associates Ltd., as residential and pied -a -terre canal side moorings for operational vessels (not houseboats). The land side of this operation is leased from the developers and is a thriving, “bona-fide” operation of some 19 year standing. There is a “presumption in favour” of moorings to be continued there, but no detail infrastructure provision in any plan so far produced. The company wish to stay there and develop the operation appropriately. Although there was good consultation with the previous developers, Brentford Town Centre Ltd,(BTC Ltd) there has been no consultation with current developers, though often requested. There appears to be a deliberate “conspiracy of silence” from them, both in this matter, and much else.
c) Town Wharf – A community of houseboat dwellers on the fully tidal Brent some 16 strong. The facility is leased by the community from the developers Ballymore and managed by Mr Peter Radley-Collis. Again, there is a “presumption in favour” of some of those houseboats being retained, but no detail plan of services to be provided ( as with Workhouse Dock ), have been provided. There has been no consultation. This community as with the other boaters moored along the River Brent/Grand Union Canal are not squatters, and need every consideration as would a householder whose roof is threatened with demolition. There has been no indication of how many residents will be retained. There are no provisions for temporary moorings for these vessels should they need to be moved to develop the site landside or, indeed, those currently moored on Malthouse Wharf either. There are NO vacant moorings anywhere in the locality.
• It should be noted also, that development works will inevitably affect all boats moored in the vicinity, even those outside of the proposed development area. All these have provided their own services at their own costs and should be carefully considered as affected residents deserving of improvements to their moorings by way of s.106 provisions, and thought given to any ameliorating of adverse conditions during development works.
• As noted above, there were earlier discussions with the previous developers and the Council involving the waterside communities in the reconstruction area south of the High Street. It is on record that some 30+ residential and pied-a-terre moorings would exist after the development, and those spaces would be reserved for the then current occupants, all counting to the Town Centre “Affordable Housing “ stock count . No such promise has been recorded since BTC Ltd departed.
• The net result of genuine engagement with the affected community should be one of greatly enhanced waterside character and amenity. We see no evidence that anything more than a token nod to the desirability of waterside as landscaping is envisaged.
• It is URGENTLY REQUESTED that the Council call upon Ballymore to deliver on the promised but long-delayed consultation with boaters, waterside residents and businesses, with the Brentford Community Council and the Brentford Waterside Forum, to draft robust and positive measures for preserving the waterside communities and residents while taking the opportunity to actively improve the facilities for them – in line with the specific BAAP policies and the London Plan. Yet more canoe clubs and the like suggestions do not in any way address the need for genuine improvements.