East Brentford/Gunnersbury
A map and notes on development in this area is available here.
Brentford Football Stadium, Lionel Road South
(00703/A/P11) Full permission for stadium and outline permission for 910 residential units was granted in June 2014.
(00703/A/P13) Permission for 648 of 910 of residential units was granted in January 2016; WCGS comments submitted on this application are available here.
(00703/A/P15+16) Approval for ground-sharing with London Irish Rugby Club was given by Planning Committee in February 2017; WCGS comments submitted on this application are available here.
Work on site now starting (March 2017) for stadium and phase 1 of residential element of scheme.
It was announced in August 2017 that significant amendments were to be proposed to both the stadium and several of the residential blocks before construction starts on the Brentford Football Stadium scheme.
Press Release from Brentford Football Club
News Article from the TW8 website
(00703/A/P17 and P18) The amendments involved a reduction in the size of the stadium with a reduced seating capacity to accommodate a perimeter road and enlarged outside broadcasting facilities. Reorientation of and design changes to the residential blocks on the Central Southern and Central Eastern sites were also proposed. The Society scrutinised the proposals and decided that the harm that would be caused to the surrounding heritage and residential communities was unlikely to be significantly different from the recognised harm of the original scheme.
WCGS comments on this application are available here
The application was approved by Hounslow Council in December 2017 and construction has started with a view to completion in time for the 2019-20 football season.
Construction has started and a Construction Newsletter has been delivered to “closest neighbours” . Information is available at http://wwwbrentfordcommunitystadium.com/
Update February 2019
Update February 2022
the Chiswick Business Park.
https://www.brentfordfc.com/fans-and-community/residents-information/
The planning application for the final phase (the Duffy site, on the west side of Lionel Road South) submitted in 2019 has yet to be presented to the Planning Committee.
1-4 Capital Interchange Way
(01508/1-4/P6) Demolition of existing warehouse/storage buildings and advertisement stanchion, and redevelopment of the site to provide a two-storey podium building, three 18, 19 and 20 storey buildings, comprising a bus depot, up to 550 residential units, offices, cafe, pod buildings, publicly-accessible open space, hard and soft landscaping; basement car parking and cycle parking, plant room and refuse storage, and two LED advertisement display panels with all necessary ancillary and enabling works.
The Society considered that, while it might be acceptable to provide a bus garage on this site, to combine it with the quantum and nature of the “enabling” development proposed in this application was totally unacceptable.
We requested that planning permission be refused. Whatever the benefits of moving the bus depot from Commerce Road, the Local Planning Authority has a statutory duty to protect the quality of life of its residents and to conserve and enhance its heritage assets and those of neighbouring boroughs. The expectation that this site can successfully and sustainably accommodate both a bus garage and sufficient “enabling residential development” to pay for it was totally unrealistic. The result is that what was proposed is a scheme that fails to:
• meet the borough’s needs for housing
• provide housing of an acceptable quality
• provide real public realm benefits
• provide the necessary infrastructure
which would have a negative impact on:
• neighbouring residents
• surrounding heritage
• public transport and traffic
and for which many of the benefits claimed would not be delivered.
WCGS comments submitted on this application are available here
To read Historic England comments sent on 12th Jan please click here.
To read Historic England comments sent on 23rd Feb please click here.
To read some of the other comments received, please check on this application on Planning pages of the Council’s website
The application was refused by Hounslow Council in December 2017 for several reasons. One major reason was “The proposed buildings, by virtue of their location, scale, and design, would cause serious harm to the significance of a range of designated heritage assets including listed buildings and conservation areas, as they would appear as overly tall and bulky elements that are discordant additions to the existing high quality townscapes, adversely affecting their setting. It has not been clearly and convincingly demonstrated that there are public benefits that would outweigh the harm caused.”
New Scheme
It is no longer planned to move the bus garage from commerce Road to Capital Interchange Way. Developers Redrow and Catalyst are proposing a new scheme for about 420 residential units.
Planning permission was given for the new scheme in March 2020 and since then a number of changes have been agreed as “Non-Material Amendments”. Many of the required Conditions have been approved during 2020 and 2021 but some are still in progress (February 2022).
An article has been published on W4. To view it please click here.
Planning permission was given for the new scheme in March 2020 and since then a number of changes have been agreed as “Non-Material Amendments”. Many of the required Conditions have been approved during 2020 and 2021 but some are still in progress (February 2022).
Capital Interchange Way; L&Q Citroen site
(01508/A/P6) This is the site on which the Council had hoped to provide a replacement for the Brentford Fountain Leisure Centre by entering into a partnership with L&Q. This arrangement appears to have fallen through (see item on East Brentford/ Gunnersbury above).
Application for a mixed-use scheme including over 400 residential units was submitted in November 2017.
WCGS comments on this application are available here
Hounslow Council have indicated their intention to refuse the application.
The application has been called in to be determined by the Mayor of London/Greater London Authority.
The Mayor of London has approved the application but it is now (November 2018) with the Secretary of State.
This was the subject of a Public Inquiry in January 2020. The Society submitted comments (June 2019) and the Chairman attended the Public Inquiry in early 2020.
She raised several issues concerning the quality of the residential provision including the health implications of locating the nursery and play space in a position exposed to high levels of air- and noise- pollution. She concluded that the public benefits that would be delivered by the scheme were not as substantial as claimed and would not out weight the harm that it would cause and requested that the Secretary of State dismiss the appeal and refuse planning permission.
The Secretary of State granted the appeal in September 2020 after finding that the scheme’s provision of much-needed housing for Londoners outweighed heritage and other concerns in line with the advice of a planning inspector.
Wheatstone House, 650 Chiswick High Road
(00248/U/P7) Demolition of existing building and the erection of 95 residential units over A1 or A3 unit(s) at ground floor level; building up to 9 storeys (approx 29m). application was refused in March 2014 but was granted on appeal in March 2015.
The site is now owned by L&Q and the development of 95 residential units has been completed.
Holly House
There is now a planning application for a 24-storey building on the site at Chiswick Roundabout (planning application 00505/EY/P20; p/2021/ ). This was discussed at our meeting on 11th October 2021 and features in an article on the Chiswick Calendar – click here to see the article.
WCGS would encourage Members and other local residents to submit comments on this application to the Council’s planning department by Thursday, 4th November 2021.
WCGS comments on this application were submitted in February 2022 and are available here.
Chiswick Curve
At the public meeting on 27th April 2016, attended by over 250 people, ( click here to see the press release) we learned from our MP, Ruth Cadbury that proposals for the Chiswick Curve scheme (application 00505/EY/P18 and AD22) had been “put on hold”. Steve Curran, Leader of Hounslow Council, confirmed that his officers were engaged in detailed discussion of the scheme with its promoters. As a gateway to the “Golden Mile” the site needed to be considered within the context of the current review of the Great West Corridor. This was at an early stage and there was a long way to go.
Contrary to our expectations, the developer (November 2016) submitted amended proposals which made only minor changes to the development and which failed utterly to address the objections raised.
At the Planning Committee meeting on Thursday, 12th January 2017, Members unanimously refused planning permission for both the building and the digital media screen advertisements. Despite the cold, wet weather about 60 local residents attended the meeting to show their strength of opposition. They were rewarded by being present to hear at first-hand this very welcome decision.
The grounds for Refusal given in the Planning Officer’s Report (click here to see more details) make it clear that the proposals are contrary to a range of policies of the London Plan, the Local Plan and the aims and objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.
Shortly after this meeting, our Chairman was interviewed by ChiswickBuzz. Topics discussed were the successful opposition to the Chiswick Curve, the value of our Heritage assets, G15 and the Great West Corridor Plan.
To see the video of the interview, please click here
The developer appealing the refusal. The appeal was to be heard at a Public Inquiry in June, 2018.
The Society worked with planning officers to support the Council’s case and Members are encouraged to attend the Inquiry.
The Public Inquiry closed on Friday, 6th July.
The Closing Statements given on Thursday afternoon and on Friday distilled the 4 weeks of evidence, cross-examination and re-examination of the Inquiry and summed up the positions of the Rule 6 parties – Historic England, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the Kew Society, of the Council and that of the Appellant, Starbones.
WCGS Chairman’s closing remarks are available here.
The Inspector provided a report with a recommendation to the Secretary of State by on December 2018.
The Secretary of State said he would issue his decision on the two linked Appeals on or before the 11th March 2019.
The West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society was delighted with the news that in March 2020 the High Court had dismissed the claim by the developer, Starbones to quash the decision of the Secretary of State. This means that the decision to refuse planning permission made in July 2019 by the then Secretary of State stands.
It has been a long campaign since Starbones submitted the application in December 2015 with various battles along the way. Throughout, we took strength from working together with neighbouring groups in Chiswick, Brentford and Kew – together, we can! The strength of opposition to the development, both local and wider, was clear at the public meeting which we organised in April 2016 and confirmed by the unanimous decision of the Council’s Planning Committee in February 2017 to refuse planning permission. We didn’t give up the fight when, as expected, the developer appealed; instead we geared up for the Public Inquiry
The harm the Chiswick Curve would have inflicted on a significant number of heritage assets was such that the Council was joined by Historic England, the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew and the Kew Society as main (Rule 6) parties at the Public Inquiry which was held over 4 weeks in June/July 2018. WCGS also participated outlining the impact on the surrounding residential communities and emphasising that “Heritage is our inheritance – it is the visible link with our history – it connects us to where we live and contributes enormously to our collective sense of place.” We then had a long wait for the Planning Inspector to submit his report to the Secretary of State and for the latter to digest the report and come to his decision, which he did in July 2019.
Now that decision is confirmed by the High Court the Society wishes to thank all those who have contributed to this successful outcome. We appreciate the major contribution made by our Council’s planning department and to the work carried out and commitment shown by our neighbouring community groups, especially the Brentford Community Council and The Kew Society. Our members and other local residents who supported us were vital to maintaining our resolve.
In relation to the Public Inquiry we wish to pay tribute to the rigorous and robust approach taken by the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and Historic England to the issue of harm to the World Heritage site and to other major heritage assets such as Strand on the Green (Historic England). The combined weight of the cases made by the Council and the other parties against the appeal was powerful.
The decision of the Secretary of State on the Chiswick Curve and the cases made by these parties will, of course, have relevance in relation to other large-scale developments currently under determination. These include the L&Q Citroen site (Public Inquiry held in January/February 2020) and the B&Q site (application currently under consideration). At both Public Inquiries the tensions between a conservation area adjacent to an Opportunity Area in a world city were debated.
In her closing statement at the Citroen Inquiry, the Chairman said:
” I think that we can all agree that London is a world city. It is of national and strategic importance as our capital city. Its natural and historic environment is too important to be treated in a cavalier fashion. It should be conserved and enhanced in accordance with the NPPF. While regeneration of the Great West Corridor is important, the corridor is not, and must not become, the defining feature of the wider area. The big attraction of this area for visitors as well as those who live and/or work here is that, while easily accessible from Central London, it has significant heritage landscapes and a beautiful stretch of the Thames which, together with its predominantly low-rise buildings give much of it a generous, open, almost rural feel. This is complemented by its compact townscape of predominantly Victorian and Edwardian terraces, providing homes to its well-established, thriving residential communities. The special appeal of both is that they provide respite and retreat from the urban environment.
A significant part of the “pull” of London is the great variety of what it has to offer in terms of its built and natural environments. It is essential that development enhances and maintains this rich tapestry rather than leads to an homogenised city of poorly distinguished areas, sterile neighbourhoods and an assortment of high-rise blocks, competing for attention as they dominate the skyline.
So, my plea is that, as a world city, London
• provides its residents with homes of genuine high quality,
• understands the true value of its historic environment and
• pays full respect to its world her
2 Larch Drive – B&Q Site
WCGS submitted extensive comments objecting to this application in March 2020.
The new scheme (including the Tech Centre “The 4th Mile”), after some modifications was presented to the Planning Committee on 2nd December 2021 (01578/2/P3) with a recommendation from the planning officers for approval. The Society’s Chairman wrote to the Committee Members providing summary comments and an annotated and updated copy of the 2020 WCGS comments. She pointed out that our 2020 comments had been severely condensed into two paragraphs of the Planning Officer’s Report. She emphasised that the Society was in favour of regeneration of this site and that we appreciated that some positive changes had been made since the initial submission. Nevertheless, we were firmly of the belief that the proposal before the Committee was a seriously inappropriate development.
A Summary of the WCGS 2020 comments are here.
An annotated and updated copy of the 2020 WCGS comments are available here.
The Society Chairman spoke in objection at the meeting. Members voted 5:4 against approval but the Committee Chair’s vote brought this to 5:5 and she then used her casting vote to bring the final vote to 6:5 in favour of approval. The Society’s Chairman found the meeting highly unsatisfactory and the outcome deeply disappointing. The meeting can be viewed on the Council’s You-tube channel; the discussion of this item begins at approximately 28 minutes. The application is now with the GLA and the Mayor of London.
250 Gunnersbury Avenue
A development was approved by Planning Committee for a 7-storey office building on this site in December 2015 (00535/250/P12). WCGS supported this development.
Please click here for comments by the WCGS on this application.
An application to increase the height to 8 storeys was approved in September 2016 (00535/250/P13). Rather than build this consented scheme, new owners, Balfour Beatty are now working on a mixed-use scheme of office and student accommodation which would be significantly taller.
An exhibition was held in July 2017 but no application was submitted
Tiger Developments Ltd are now in the process (June 2019) of developing a planning application for this site.” Proposals include “co-living” residential accommodation and co-working space in an 11 – 13-storey building.
Click here to see an article on the W4 website.
An application was submitted in March 2020 (00535/250/P14)
WCGS comments on this application were submitted in May 2020 and are available here.
The application was refused in September 2021.
Two Prior Approval applications (00535/250/PA1 and PA2) were submitted in late 2021, one to demolish the whole structure and build a 5-storey residential building and another to retain the current building and refurbish it for 3 floors of offices and add 2 floors of residential units. The Society was pleased to note that for both these applications the Council has determined that Prior Approval was needed and that this had been refused. The Society provided comments in January 2022 endorsing these refusals.
Power Road Studios, 114 Power Road
An application was made (00890/114/P1) for the erection of a 5-storey office block as a replacement for studio 5 and erection of an additional floor to studio 1 (the main building). The Society strongly supports the retention of the existing employment B1 uses of buildings within the Power Road Industrial Estate; we recognise the importance of the estate and the current mix of SMEs that it contains.
However, with respect to this application, we objected to the proposals for Studio 1 and to the proposals for Studio 5 but indicated that we would support a new building of revised scale and design at this location. We requested that adequate consideration was given to the cumulative impacts of this and other consented developments with respect to public transport, especially Gunnersbury Station.
We considered that the proposals would cause serious harm to the significance of the Studio 1 building, which was currently worthy of local listing and was one of the best examples of Art Deco architecture in Power Road.
WCGS comments submitted on this application in March 2017 are available here.
8 Power Road
(00890/8/P2) The Society strongly supports the retention of the existing employment B1 uses of buildings within the Power Road Industrial Estate; we recognise the importance of the estate and the current mix of SMEs that it contains. It was therefore pleased that an existing business wished to remain and expand and it therefore supported their wish to renovate and extend their current premises in Power Road. However, while we did not object, in principle, to the addition of a two-storey roof extension, we did have objections to aspects of the design.
WCGS comments on this application are available here.
We regret that the application was approved by Hounslow Council in 2018 without any of the requested changes to the design.
Work commenced in 2021 but, contrary to the consented scheme, the building has been demolished; this situation has been raised with the Council as an Enforcement case.
632 Chiswick High Road; Citroen/Peugot Dealership at Chiswick Roundabout
Land adjacent to 632 Chiswick High Road
An application (00248/ADJ632/P1) for an hotel was submitted in March2021.
WCGS comments on this application are available here.
The application was approved by the Planning committee in November 2021 subject to a Legal Agreement.
266-270 Gunnersbury Avenue
An application (00535/266-270/P2) for an eight-storey self-storage facility was submitted in November 2021.
WCGS comments on this application are available here
The Society Chairman spoke in objection at the meeting of the Planning Committee on 3rd March 2022. Before the meeting she provided Members with (1) a “Context and Character” document prepared to assist Members unfamiliar with Power Road, (2) a copy of the WCGS comments submitted in January 2022 since these have been so severely condensed in the Planning Officer’s Report (Section 5 ) that it was not possible for Members to gain an understanding of the basis for the Society’s objections and (3) extracts from the Planning Officer Report annotated with WCGS observations and responses.
The Context and Character Study is available here.
The annotated extract of the Planning Officer’s Report is available here.
At the meeting the Society Chairman emphasised that, while the Power Road estate had been included within the boundary of the Great West Corridor in the Local Plan Review (now part-way through the Examination in Public), both it’s position beyond the main artery of the corridor and its special low-rise and fine-grained character had been recognised throughout the Review process. The Council’s vision was of a strengthened Power Road as an employment location and an enhanced hub for creative industries. To achieve this objective it recognised that it would be essential to retain and enhance the character and ‘creative feel’ of the area. The highly insensitive proposal for a very large rectangular “tin shed” (28m high and extending across the whole site), devoid of any architectural merit, failed utterly to do this. The Society Chairman advised members of the Committee that to approve it would seriously undermine the Council’s aspirations for the Power Road estate.
The application was approved, despite this advice and despite it representing a loss of employment. The meeting can be viewed on the Council’s You-tube channel; the discussion of this item begins at approximately 23 minutes.
WCGS 