|
LETTER FROM WEST CHISWICK AND GUNNERSBURY SOCIETY
ON NEW CHISWICK WEST PLANS
 THE
WEST CHISWICK & GUNNERSBURY SOCIETY
78a Silver Crescent
Chiswick
W4 5SE
22
May 2002
Planning reference: 00248/BX/P1
00248/586 -596/P1 00248/BY/P1
Mr
Ian Draper
Planning Officer
The Civic Centre
Lampton Road
Hounslow
Middx TW3 4DN
Dear Mr Draper,
Chiswick West development - reconsultation
I
refer to your letter of 7 May to the Society
concerning the resubmitted planning application
for 391-409 Chiswick High Road and land adjoining,
568-596 Chiswick High Road and land adjoining
and land adjacent to Gunnersbury Station (01.10.2001.
amended 05.04.2002.).
The
Society has examined the revised plans and
wish to register our objections to them.
These
plans propose a 28 storey building adjacent
to the existing BSI and a six storey building
rising to nine storeys opposite. This would
require the demolition of three residential
units of housing, a public house and existing
office block (Singapore Airlines) on one site;
and a detached house and row of retail shops
with flats above them.
Both
buildings would be considerably higher than
the existing buildings and would effectively
tower above other properties, particularly
residential units in the area.
In
addition, these developments are in conflict
with the UDP in that:
1.
The nature of the development is not comparable
with the existing area in terms of size, scale
and design. The UDP states that any development
needs to respect the proportions of existing
buildings. This is not the case with these
developments. The development of a tall building,
such as Chiswick West, as well as the proposed
office development at 391 - 409, clearly conflicts
with the Council's UDP.
2. It also does not accord with the Council's
policy in terms of the adverse impact it will
have on the adjoining residential areas and
open spaces.
3. The 28 storey tower and the 6 to 9 storey
office development opposite will cast a significant
shadow over much of Silver Crescent and Thorney
Hedge Road. This will invade the privacy of
those whole reside in these roads; as well
as properties to the East and South of the
Tower block development. The UDP makes it clear
that any development needs to ensure that adequate
daylight and sunlight reaches adjoining properties,
and minimise any detrimental impact on them.
It should also enhance the townscape of the
surrounding area (see env.B/)002 & 003).
This is not the case with this development.
4. For the Council to fail to recognise the
intrusive nature of this development on those
who live in the area, might place it - as a
public body - in conflict with Article 8 of
the Human Rights Act 1998, which provides for
individuals to have a right to privacy.
5. The UDP also require the design of developments
to enhance the safety and security in the environment.
The Society would like to point out that both
the local authority and police have a general
duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder
Act 1998 to ensure that in discharging their
other duties they contribute to reducing crime
and disorder in the area. To approve the construction
of a 28 storey tower block on the flight path
site to Heathrow and close to both a public
transport station and the Chiswick Flyover
would create a major security risk and provide
a potential target for terrorists. As such
they would both be failing in their duty under
the Act if they were to approve a development
of this nature.
6. The tower block would be visible from the
conservation areas close to the site, as well
as the Gunnersbury Triangle Nature Reserve;
and would have an adverse impact on both these
areas.
7. The Council's policy is to oppose the redevelopment
of arts, cultural and entertainment facilities
unless it includes the provision for replacement
facilities on site (see C6.1 of UDP). The development
proposes the demolition of the John Bull public
house without any proposal to replace it on
site.
8. The UDP envisages that Chiswick Business
Park would be the area for office development
in this part of the Borough. This Park is still
under construction, yet is not fully let. There
are other vacant office properties close by,
which remain vacant. Indeed in recent years
a number of office buildings have been changed
over to residential use. Therefore, there is
already a surfeit of office development on
this part of the Chiswick High Road. So more
is not needed and would not accord with the
principles of sustainable and mixed development.
9. The degree of affordable and key worker
housing proposed is only 69 units, which is
considerably less than those required in the
Borough's own Housing Strategy, or that shown
in the UDP.
10. The amount of parking proposed is completely
inadequate for some 226 units of accommodation,
together with the parking generated by a further
700 jobs connected with the office development,
the staff required to service the residential
units, leisure facilities, restaurants and
retail units. This would mean that parking
would spill over into adjacent residential
streets, which are already so heavily congested
that it is often impossible for residents to
find parking spaces near their homes.
11. The additional traffic flow that would
be created as a result of the development would
add to the untenable volume of traffic on Chiswick
High Road This road will already become increasingly
congested anyway once the Chiswick Business
Park becomes fully developed. To add further
to it would be detrimental to the area.
12. Furthermore, the additional traffic on
Chiswick High Road would impede the flow of
bus transport.
13. Although the developer proposed some developments
to improve the access to Gunnersbury Station,
these have not been agreed to by Railtrack
or the train operating companies. In any event,
they would not improve the flow of rail transport
to station and would add to the heavy amount
of passenger traffic that station experiences
at peak travel times.
14. The UDP (IMP/005) makes it clear that any
economic development in this part of the Borough
should be accommodated within Chiswick Business
Park "providing that public transport
can be improved". This development fails
both these tests.
15. The UDP also states that its policy is
to retain and reintroduce the residential use
of upper floor of business properties fronting
Chiswick High Road. The Council also expressed
its concern at the continuous pressure for
additional A3 premises. This proposed development
clearly conflicts with both these policies.
16. The environmental Impact Analysis submitted
by Clifton Cape only mentions the immediate
site and not the surrounding areas. In addition,
the wind analysis makes no reference to the
Venturi effect that will be created by having
two high-rise building in close proximity to
each other i.e. the Chiswick West Tower and
the existing BSI building. The exiting wind
effect caused by the BSI building is already
considerable and will be further adversely
affected by the construction of the Chiswick
West building.
17. There are insufficient details provided
of the proposed development of Gunnersbury
Station on which to arrive at any clear conclusions.
18. The proposed development offers nothing
of benefit for the local community. There is
already a lack of community facilities and
areas for young people to play in the area.
The provision of 226 residential units, without
contributing to the communities` facilities
is a further weakness in the proposed application.
As a general observation, the developer invited
the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society to
provide it with its proposals for the development
of these sites. These were provided on 4 February,
a copy of which was sent to the Council's Development
Control Officer. The Architect subsequently
responded to say that it would take the views
of the Society into account. It is obvious
from the nature of these revised plans that
virtually all of what the Society proposed
has been ignored.
Yours
sincerely,
T.M. Thorn
Chair.
Revised
Plans for Chiswick West Submitted
West
Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society's Letter Objecting
to Wing House Development
Chiswick
on the March
West
Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society
Comments
on the new plans
New
Application to Demolish John Bull
Residents
Group Writes to Architects
Minutes
of Meeting of Local residents
Opposition
Grows to Chiswick West
Full
Text of Letter of Objection from Peter Eversden
Sample
Letter of Objection from local resident
Spokesman
for Developer Urges Residents to View Plans
Before Deciding
Comment
on this issue on the Chiswick Discussion Forum
Transport
Plans for Chiswick Business Park
Your
local Council Representatives
Contact
details for your MP
|