Memorandum submitted by the Brentford
Waterside Forum (BW 38)
WHO WE
ARE
1. The Brentford Waterside Forum has been
in operation for over 20 years, involving itself in all matters
of waterside importance in the area, conducting dialogue with
both developers and Hounslow Council.
2. Organisations represented on the Forum
include:
The Butts Society; Inland Waterways Association;
The Hollows Association; MSO Marine; Brentford Dock Residents
Association; Brentford Yacht & Boat Co.Ltd; Brentford Marine
Services; Holland Gardens Residents Community; Weydock Ltd; Thames
& Waterways Stakeholders Forum; Sailing Barge Research; The
Island Residents Group; Ferry Quays Residents Association
3. The Forum's Core Values and Objectives
are stated as follows:
"The rediscovery of the Waterside in Brentford
is putting intense pressure on the water front. There is growing
competition for access to the river and canal sides; pressure
is mounting to create new economic activities and provide residential
development on the waters edge. These pressures jeopardise both
existing businesses and the right of Brentford people to access
the water, which is part of their heritage. Access to the waterside
in Brentford is made possible by the changing economic and commercial
use of the water.
The role of the Waterside Forum is to provide
informed comment on proposed developments or changes. Brentford
Waterside Forum will work with and through agencies to achieve
the following:
— A strategic context for waterside
decision making.
— To protect access to the waterside,
its infrastructure and the water itself for people to use for
recreation, enjoyment and business, emphasising business that
need a waterside location to be successful.
— To argue for improvements to the
waterside facilities for business, residents and visitors so as
to deliver tangible benefits to all the communities of Brentford.
— To seek the protection of the waterside
and the water as an ecological resource.
The Waterside Forum will seek through dialogue,
persuasion and research to influence decision-makers to take the
needs of the users of both the water and the waterside into full
account when determining the future of Brentford. In doing this
it will endeavour to protect and preserve the best of the past
without making the future a slave to the past. It will seek to
work with all other agencies and organisations who are interested
in improving the use of and understanding of the waterside to
enable access to, and enjoyment of, it."
INVOLVEMENT WITH
BRITISH WATERWAYS
4. The Forum has necessarily engaged with
British Waterways both as a body and through members individually,
on all prospective local development schemes alongside the Grand
Union Canal. Over the years this experience has become increasingly
depressing, despite the admirable dedication of ground staff and
specialist officers.
5. The major issue over the past few years
has had to do with the proposed ISIS development of Commerce Road.
The scheme for this was rejected by the Council and ISIS have
appealed the decision, the case currently still being heard. Part
of the supporting documentation was a file on public consultation,
several pages of which detailed the meetings with ourselves and
listed the points of concern we raised. This however was presented
in such a way as to give the impression that the scheme took account
of these, whereas those concerns remain unaddressed. Such cynical
manipulation of our involvement along with others, to suggest
our approval and co-operation is not untypical.
THE FUNDAMENTAL
PROBLEM
6. In short, there is a conflict of interest
between the efforts of BW to become commercially self-sufficient
and their duty to the care, maintenance and improvement of the
canal system.
7. Whereas we believe that the basic remit
of BW is to preserve and improve the waterways with the view to
making them as commercially viable as possible whilst extending
their public benefit as widely as possible, the BW interpretation
of self-sufficiency has proven to be concentrated on financial
returns that have little to do with the waterways themselves.
Instead the system is seen as offering a premium value to property
development.
8. We do not believe that using the canals
as a value-enhancing background to adjacent property development
equates to increasing the value of them as a commercial and recreational
facility.
9. Whenever adjacent property development
involves loss to the system of vital amenities, it is the amenities
that suffer every time. This extends to the loss of facilities
important to any increased use of the canals for freight.
EXAMPLES
10. With the Commerce Road proposal, BW
seek demolition consent for the overhanging warehouse/transhipment
dock. When challenged over this, their response has been that
Brentford is no longer suitable for freight due to the residential
developments that they have already built nearby.
11. Despite the Council's long published
desire to retain this area for industrial use, BW have spent years
acquiring the properties for residential use, and have proclaimed
that in the event of their appeal being lost, they have no intention
of complying with the industrial designation of the site. This
runs directly counter to BW's own Planning Guidance intended to
inform Boroughs of principles essential to the benefit of the
system.
12. Another long-running battle has been
with respect to the Brentford Town Centre proposals, for which
BW drew up the waterside strategy. This involved the removal and
filling in of a unique tidal slipway and tidal grid, the eviction
of the boatyard operator, the marine repair and maintenance company
and the moored boaters. As the last canalside boatyard on the
Grand Union, this is a drastic and severe destruction of an essential
and irreplaceable facility.
13. For years up to the present time, BW
have insisted that this is nothing to do with them, and refrain
from any support for retention of the yard.
14. Worse than simply failing to support
their own Planning Guidance, they have actively campaigned against
protection of the boatyard in meetings with the Council Planning
Department. This has involved untrue information being presented
while strongly supporting protection of their own nearby boatyard,
in contradiction to their proclaimed stand on conflict of issue
questions.
15. The benefit to BW in taking a stand
so contradictory to their basic remit is a very small pecuniary
advantage in replacing private boats with "Business Barges"
16. Still with the sole aim of increasing
income, BW have involved themselves further along the entrance
to the canal in the Ferry Quays proposals, again promoting the
taking up of waterspace with these permanently placed barges.
These are intended to be lucrative rental earners for BW, at the
expense yet again of public amenity and access.
17. Further north on the Grand Union a few
years ago, BW consented to the building of a private bridge that
involved filling in part of a canal layby. Regardless of the doubtless
remunerative consideration they would have received, this ran
directly against both Parliamentary remit and the Blue Ribbon
Network policies of the London Plan.
18. Recent articles in the national press
have illuminated the fact that we have been inveighing against
for years, of BW's lukewarm interest in improving freight use
of the canals. Increased freight use more than anything else,
would help revitalise the waterways, yet as we have pointed out,
the balance in any decisions over development schemes has always
fallen in favour of the most profitable use of the land, rather
than the beneficial use of the canal.
CONCLUSION
19. It is essential that the whole outlook
of BW undergoes a paradigm shift in favour of their essential
remit. This will necessitate a change in both Parliamentary interest
and in managerial directives.
Brentford Waterside Forum
January 2007
| 
