Summary of comments from the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society on Chiswick Curve
Great West Corridor:
With regard to the Great West Corridor the Local Plan commits the Council to “work with residents and stakeholders to explore and identify the potential capacity for additional employment-led mixed use development along the Great West Corridor and co-ordinate its regeneration”
The Council has not yet shared its vision or aspirations for the Great West Corridor with residents.
Therefore, any application for a site that may be within the GtWC should be assessed against the policies in the current Local Plan as adopted in September 2015 and should conform with the London Plan and the NPPF.
***
The West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society (WCGS) objects in the strongest terms to the development proposed within this application and requests that planning permission is refused.
The overarching vision of the Local Plan is that “The quality of life and health of residents will be improved by the provision of supporting infrastructure and high quality and responsive deign that respect and enhance local character. Significant local character, natural and heritage assets will be protected and enhanced to maximise their benefits to local residents and businesses.” We consider that the proposed development fails utterly to live up to that vision; it fails to meet many Local Plan and London Plan policies and does not conform to the central dictum of the NPPF that resultant development must be sustainable.
WCGS considers that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the local economy, environment and the quality of life of existing residents and any future residents of the development.
Key objections include:
Unsuitability of site for Residential Use
WCGS considers that the constrained site surrounded by major roads in a highly polluted (air and noise) locality is, in principle, totally unsuitableThe overarching vision of the Local Plan is that “The quality of life and health of residents will be improved by the provision of supporting infrastructure and high quality and responsive deign that respect and enhance local character. Significant local character, natural and heritage assets will be protected and enhanced to maximise their benefits to local residents and businesses.”
We consider that the proposed development fails utterly to live up to that vision; it fails to meet many Local Plan and London Plan policies and does not conform to the central dictum of the NPPF that resultant development must be sustainable.
WCGS considers that the proposed development would have a detrimental impact on the local economy, environment and the quality of life of existing residents and any future residents of the development.
This site is in the most inappropriate place for residential use; there is frequent grid-lock at the roundabout and the site suffers from some of the highest levels of air and noise pollution in the borough.
We consider that the cumulative impact of development in the area (completed, under construction and in the pipe-line) on the road network will give rise to severe congestion that will significantly increase air pollution. Residents of this development will be exposed to the hostile environment of the site and will need to negotiate the major roads surrounding the Chiswick Roundabout on foot on a daily basis.
Public realm improvements proposed to try and mitigate some of the negative features of the locality are either impractical or undeliverable or both.
Leading the sedentary, socially isolated lives thus envisaged will be detrimental to the physical and mental wellbeing of residents and to community cohesion. How can our Council reconcile such a dystopian forecast of life in the 2020s with the vision of our recently adopted Local Plan?
We conclude that the proposed development is not “sustainable development”
Lack of infrastructure
A mixed-use development of the scale proposed would add unacceptably to the pressure on infrastructure both community and transport. So much major development has recently been built or is in the pipe-line in Brentford and Chiswick, that no more should be built until the necessary community and transport infrastructure is in place. There is a now a critical need for an “infrastructure catch-up” before any more development is allowed.
Impact on traffic and public transport
Adding more vehicles to the strategic and local road network and more users to the local public transport system will have significant negative economic, social and environmental impacts. Existing businesses and residents are already struggling with the inadequacy of the existing transport network. The local road network is already at saturation at peak times and there is frequent grid-lock at the roundabout.
Public transport
The applicant’s expectation that residents and workers within the development will be able to rely on public transport is unrealistic.
Bus Additional bus services or increased frequency of existing services are most unlikely to be delivered in the short to medium term due to the congested road network. A recent TfL consultation on bus route 70, for instance, stated “Extending it would expose it to heavy traffic around Chiswick Roundabout which would affect reliability.”
Underground and rail.Gunnersbury Station and Kew Bridge Station have significant access problems and Gunnersbury Station also has severe capacity problems. The overcrowding at Gunnersbury is such that TfL already currently operates crowd control measures during peak hours.
Impact on surrounding heritage and low-rise residential areas
WCGS considers that the development would inflict severe and lasting harm on the natural and built environment of the area compromising its current qualities and undermining strategies for its enhancement. In addition to the harm to the visual amenity of the area caused by the scale of the building and the number and size of the digital media screens, the negative impact on traffic and public transport would be detrimental to the quality of life of local residents and to the visitor experience and hence to the viability of the visitor attractions.The change in scale of this development is brutal and the impact would be inescapable.
London is of national and strategic importance as our capital city. Its natural and historic environment is too important to be treated in this cavalier fashion. 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 follies, competing for attention as they dominate the skyline.
While the Golden Mile is indeed to be celebrated, it 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, whileeasily 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.
Having studied the application the Society refutes absolutely the applicant’s claim that “the final proposal balances sensitivity to heritage assets with a strong positive visual marker to celebrate the eastern gateway of the Golden Mile” and the conclusion of the Environmental Statement “that the development will do no harm and that no likely effects have been assessed as having a negative impact”.
This is tantamount to saying that the despoiling of the wider historic area is justified because it’s time this heritage was ‘put in its place’ and made to offer homage to the grand urban gesture of the Golden Mile and the major road infrastructure.
The proposed residential use, together with the digital media screens would compound and extend the building’s malign influence by creating a massive brightly-lit structure. Unlike commercial premises, high-rise residential buildings – assuming they are occupied – create light spillage and light glow.
What is needed at this site in terms of built form is a landmark building that fully respects its context and its multiple “gateway functions”. It should serve to mediate between the very different scales of the Golden Mile and that of the other routes. A building based on the footprintdesign of the current application but with the two main elements of the building being no more than 36 and 48m (9 and 12 commercial stories) with perhaps a slim, elegant element of no more than 60m might fit the bill.
As far as the Golden Mile is concerned, what we need is a full-stop, not an exclamation mark!
Media Screens
00505/EY/P18 and 00505/EY/AD22
WCGS objects strongly to the proposal to locate four very large digital media screens on the lower five floors of this building. The applicant himself notes that six roads converge at Chiswick Roundabout but suggests that this means that “There is the potential to provide advertising in four locations on the facades to maximise the amount of viewing exposure on each of these roads.”
We point out that all four screens are taller than those already on the roundabout (7.8m v 7.2m) and between approx. 2 to 5 times wider.
Our objection is supported by the following:
34.2 Open Letter from Council Leader, 20 January 2016 to the Planning Inspectorate to complain about the removal of the iconic Lucozade advertisement at York House, Brentford, in which he states:
Overall, I am concerned there is a lack of consistency with decisions for advertisements on the Great West Road. I appreciate there is a real pressure from advertisers to locate here, as one of the most valuable stretches of land for advertisements in the country. But it is mainly a residential area and local people are not happy about the brightness of the LED screens, which is completely different to the old style illuminated advert hoardings.
WCGS 10 February 2016
February 18, 2016