| Topic: | Re:Re:Another one bites the dust | |
| Posted by: | Tracie Dudley Craig | |
| Date/Time: | 20/08/19 11:27:00 |
| Sincere thanks to all who have responded. Other than a slightly peculiar segue into greasy chicken and greasier palms (which should really have been taken elsewhere), this discourse has unearthed some interesting opinions and insights. The original premise of my post involved the proposed redevelopment of the O’Riordan’s site, however that premise has, unavoidably, broadened into the issue of Brentford’s redevelopment at large. First, the key take-away: structures belong to the owner of the land upon which they are built. The owner of the land upon which O’Riordan’s is built can, within the strictures of planning, demolish and rebuild anything they wish. By that token, it’s pretty safe to assume that O’Riordan’s is a goner. Who’d a thunk it? (Mike Paterson’s observation that, kept as a pub, O’Riordan’s would have ideally located to take advantage of the new stadium is a good one. It hadn’t even occurred to me but, then again, I’m not a football enthusiast.) That leads - neatly, I feel - into the question of planning permission itself; why are these permissions being granted? I’m not talking about small domestic extensions which don’t make much impact upon their front elevations (additionally, show me an historic house where alterations and additions haven’t been made), rather these grand, sweeping changes which denature an area and rob it of its essential character. It’s often hard for householders to gain permission for small extensions. Why is it so much easy for a process to run roughshod over history, the feelings of residents and those who have to live with the consequences? It’s retina-burning streetlighting and wheelie bins spoiling the appearance of terraced houses all over again. Of course it’s more expensive to restore rather than replace, but our communities are very much the poorer for it. In truth, I don’t see a family moving into a Brentford new-build and remaining in the area for 150 years, as is the family history for some current residents. The criticism that these developments create a ‘dormitory’ environment is a sound one and the lack of infrastructure in the form of shops and facilities would support this. (I’ll be interested to learn which retail outlets populate the available spaces when the time comes.) There seems to be little in the way of permanence in these blocks of flats and really does little to create community, however much communal tai chi is thrown into the mix. My dismay at the proposed loss of the High Street’s Barclay’s and Post Office façades is clearly another case of one person’s definition of ‘merit’ victorious over another’s. The Guardian’s ‘Derelict London’ piece also featured the Cinematograph building on Shepherd’s Bush Green. Demolition has commenced, however, the façade has been preserved and will be integrated into a new structure, although the decorative terracotta side panels have, sadly, gone. The developers are, apparently, committed to replacing these with exact facsimiles. For many, it’s not an ideal outcome, but it shows willing. It adds up to the notion that conservation and/or listing is entirely toothless as, on a case-by-case basis it can be overturned by approval from a planning committee. There’s a great deal written about contextual design and development but this is, I believe, weasel. How, precisely, does the south-side development contextualise itself? The Goddard’s building? By that token, it could be argued that the context for O’Riordan’s redevelopment would be its architecturally undistinguished neighbours. That’s lowest common denominator-think of the dreariest sort. In other matters: - NV Brooks – I am familiar with Gavin Stamp (there’s a lovely piece about him on the Bible of British Taste website) and the Nooks and Corners column. I think you make a very valid point regarding the lack of comment from VicSoc. Does anyone local engage with them? Would it make a difference? (Although if World Heritage/Historic England intervention can’t make a dent, what hope anyone else?) I may make inquiries. Adam Beamish – I’m never disappointed by the way that you manage to make every thread in which you participate all about you, your good works and your propriety. It’s the gift that keeps on giving. Good man! Incentivising is not a sin. I just wish that incentives were given to people who might, conceivably, add something to the area. As it is, independents go arse-up, while the Colonel’s eleven secret herbs and spices live to fight another day. As I mentioned some time ago, the Grosvenor Estate’s incentive scheme has created some fantastic places to shop, run by people who would never have believed they had the funds to open in Belgravia. Lots to think about there. Councillor Lambert – I’m afraid that I must agree with some of the other posters; I watched with horror as the Sarah Trimmer building was dismantled. It may have been ‘robustly’ rebuilt, however – visually - it is not what it was, merely an ersatz facsimile of the original. Unlike O’Riordan’s (or the redeveloped church nearby) it was a building of enormous cultural significance - why was it ever allowed to fall into such disrepair? It’s also a fair assessment to suggest that its ‘robust’ restoration was only carried out in the hope of gain from development and it’s absolutely right that planning applications for multi-occupancy conversion were turned down. It deserved (and still deserves) better. Your observation regarding the Brewery Tap versus Rye on the Water is disingenuous. The Tap’s future has been in question for years and that uncertainty doesn’t encourage maintenance or a spot of gentrification. ROTW is a nice addition to the area (and the source of a decent loaf – if you’re there in time), but until there’s a substantial increase in weekday footfall it is almost certainly running at the sort of loss that would put anyone out of business in short order. This, of course, presents another question… The issue, as ever, is communication that is far from transparent. The car park debacle is an excellent case in point. When residents are fed conflicting information regarding planning permission and permanence, can you really blame them for grasping at facts which may be gleaned from less than impeccable sources? It's not a rumour mill, it's a lack of clear facts. Legitimate questions are met with evasion, defensiveness, impatience and exasperation. I know that you are exceptionally diligent in responding to threads such as this, but some of your colleagues let the side down quite horribly. You have to accept this. I know it’s a cracked record, but this whole situation is a shambles. Poor old Brentford – what did you do to deserve this? |