As many of you will know, the regeneration of Brentford High Street, has been a cause close to my heart for many years.  As a local councillor I convened the start-up of Brentford High Street Steering Group (BHSSG) in 2006 with cross-party support and I remain chair. In 2007 I spent a year facilitating the community participation that led to the Community Vision report for the high street, subsequently recognised in the annual awards of the Academy for Sustainable Communities.  Many aspects of the Community Vision were reflected in the Brentford Area Action Plan (local planning policy) published in 2009 – and then the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment report in 2010.

We have always been – and remain – constructive critics, and sometimes critical friends/partners, of the developers Ballymore.  With our dialogue based approach it was therefore with a heavy heart, feeling that some of our substantial concerns and ideas have not reached Ballymore’s management and investors that we have raised the volume on our critique of the scheme in recent months.  From our website, this was picked up by BrentfordTW8.com, The Hounslow Chronicle and now The Irish Times.

This blog endeavours to set out in some detail what BHSSG feels is to be commended, and where substantial improvements are still required…

Where the current Ballymore team are to be commended

Sadly the predecessors of the current Ballymore team in London cleared out many small businesses from the south side of the High Street in 2005-7 leaving dereliction in their wake.  This created a challenging base for the current team to start building relations with the community.

However since 2007 we would credit Ballymore’s project managers with ensuring that most of the spaces that had not been wrecked were reoccupied.  The company has:

• supported initiatives such as the town’s Christmas lights and community art initiatives;
• worked in partnership with volunteers and micro-enterprises on “meanwhile uses”, which has prevented Brentford High Street’s collapse through the recession;
• co-commissioning the Prince’s Foundation for the Built Environment report in 2010 with Brentford High Street Steering Group; and
• when London Borough of Hounslow looked to bid for Outer London Fund Round 2 funding from the Mayor of London and needed a delivery partner, Ballymore gamely stepped up to the table and offered to help.  (Developers ISIS eventually secured the project management brief but the tangible support of Ballymore must be welcomed).

We now have to look to the future.  Getting meanwhile usage right does not negate the need to implement the community’s vision for the regeneration.  As explained below, the planning approach has left too much in the hands of architects that do not demonstrate a deep enough empathy with the area – and been selective in what aspects of the community’s vision they incorporate.

Where the planning application falls short – too tall and ugly

In the coming days we will publish an updated version of our Regeneration Scorecard.  This looks at the present scheme alongside the goals of the 2007, 2009 and 2010 policy/guidelines.

We welcome the fact that the scheme has the potential to respond to a number of environmental sustainability issues, restore quite a few historic buildings and inject new vitality into Brentford’s retail offer.   I can vouch having visited Ballymore’s Embassy Gardens scheme that their ability to deliver high quality interiors and living spaces is impressive. On a two dimensional level there is also plenty that links the proposed street scape to the community vision – although the yard retaining Brentford’s oldest yard name (Boar’s Head Yard) is notable by its absence from the Planning Application, which is a very unfortunate loss.  Where the scheme seems to have gone adrift was when it went into 3D.

BHSSG has said for many years that the community should be involved in selecting the scheme architects.  We have also always said that the massing should respect the spirit and intent of the Brentford Area Action Plan (BAAP).

Ballymore have long stated that they could not involve the community in the choice of architect as it is a very important process for them and they needed to ensure that the selected team were able to deliver the quality that Ballymore require.  BHSSG share this desire for a quality build so we remain baffled as to why we could not have been involved in the long listing and short listing.  Community involvement in the selection of architects for ISIS’ Commerce Rd site shows the difference in collective ownership this can make.

BHSSG have tried to help the planning process reach a successful conclusion by arguing consistently for three styles of architecture to be blended across what is a substantial site: restoration of old buildings, modernism and also traditional styles in the new build.  The latter would help ensure the retention – and sometimes creation – of the “nooks and crannies” that give the area its character and charm, rather than an overwhelming amount of angular modern architecture that drowns out the historic buildings.   This approach would blend the old with the new.

We have clearly failed to make the case thus far for securing this third strand of traditional styles as part of the mix – some sadly call it pastiche in a derogatory way.  As others have argued, traditional styles “can be used confidently as symbols of continuity in our changing lives… The C20th modernists have used modernism to portray amnesia for the past and a break with any tradition.”

The need for deep community participation in design

This gap between the Community Vision and planning application reflects the reality that Ballymore and their architects have not yet embraced the “Community architecture” approach that we argue is necessary in our historic town centre.  This can simply be defined as, “architecture carried out with the active participation of the end-users”.   If their architects were asked clearly by Ballymore as the commissioners to embrace community architecture they would have let go of the modernism in some areas of the site.  This would ensure some architecture of a traditional style and respond to the full spectrum of architectural styles and characters the community envisioned.

Community architecture can be traced back to the 1950s self-help community initiatives in developing countries.  In these self-help projects, the professionals joined hands with the people to improve their environment.  It has now developed in different forms around the world with a common vision, that is, public participation in decisions affecting their environments and lives.  The Conservative’s in the UK published a green paper prior to the 2010 general election on the future of planning that talked of an “Open Source planning” approach, perhaps in a similar spirit?  If we look to the way that a traditional style was incorporated into the Kew Bridge side of the St Georges Kew Bridge scheme we can see community influence in practice.

BHSSG have always said “consultation” without genuine “participation” was insufficient for such a critical site to Brentford’s history and future.   In this vein we requested that BHSSG/ the community needed to have key site reports released iteratively to comment on – not all at the point of planning application as eventually occurred. We now have to spend our weekends, against a ticking clock, trawling through and scrutinising environmental sustainability, retail, economic and dozens of other reports that should have been discussed much earlier in the design process.  Perhaps most critically the Design Code and Design Approach should have secured the support of the local community 12 months ago, before the architects launched into the detailed design phase.

After giving our time in 2007 to visit a selection of London sites that excited Ballymore, we even offered to take Ballymore and their architects this Autumn to visit sites that we thought should be used as references.  Both these offers over the past year, early feedback on site reports and reference site visits,  have sadly been ignored.

Iterative improvements are not enough

Over the past 12 months we have given considerable amounts of time to the consultation process as volunteers sitting on a ‘Reference Group’.  The Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) shows the piecemeal responses from Ballymore to our substantive concerns regarding architecture and massing.

When the final planning application was submitted in September 2012 (of which the SCI is a part) it became absolutely clear that fundamental issues we are raising of massing and architectural aesthetic had been ignored – or that for some reason the Ballymore project team do not have the room for manoeuvre needed to secure the full support of the community.   With more realistic ambitions from their investors about Return on Investment (ROI) and therefore massing – as well as a shift in design approach – we would not be at this impasse. If the land has been over-valued then losses should be accepted sooner rather than later.  However it may be that ROI can be maximised through higher quality housing of reduced density – each unit may sell at a higher price point.

As someone that has personally experienced growing delays in the wait times to see a local GP as Brentford’s population has grown sharply – and seen friends struggling to get their kids into the local primary and secondary schools of their choice – 930 flats (the massing) is a real, not an abstract, concern.

Ballymore and community stakeholders are now faced with a dilemma as to whether there is value in continuing to try and achieve iterative improvements to the plans that are presently on the table.

Next steps – achieving a world-class scheme

We have continued to input to the process in recent weeks and months, despite our significant misgivings, to try and improve the scheme. Within the limited scope of Ballymore’s present readiness for change to the plans we do not want to be unhelpful.  Whilst Ballymore may be frustrated at a brighter spotlight than ever now falling on the scheme, sustained dialogue is clearly more important than ever.  Neither Ballymore nor the local community want delays or additional costs to be incurred in the scheme securing planning permission and proceeding.

We strongly believe a world class scheme can be put together that meets all stakeholders needs, but there needs to be a shift on these fundamentals.  Brentford’s town centre regeneration is a risk shared by Ballymore, their backers and the local community – whether planning permission can be secured and the development succeeds or fails will affect all our investments in Brentford.

Andrew Dakers writes this blog post in his capacity as Chair of Brentford High Street Steering Group.