Forum Topic

Chiswick Tower and accessibility at Gunnersbury

Looking at the report on what was approved last night for Chiswick Tower, it seems that basically it is just a giant HMO and the intention is to cram as many people into the building as possible.I don't blame the councillors for approving it as it was the only game in town and the developer was holding a gun to their heads by dangling the possibility of an alternative with no affordable units. They also were smart in commissioning an architect to produce pretty pictures of what Gunnersbury station could look like although making it clear they weren't going to be paying. Like Chiswick Business Park before them, they have dodged any responsibility for stumping up for the much needed station upgrade and now it looks unlikely anything will happen for at least a decade. Maybe this outcome means that more attention will be given to making at least one other of Chiswick's stations step free.

Francis Rowe ● 6d9 Comments

It would be a shame if nothing was done to rescue Gunnersbury station from its present total obscurity, hidden behind and beneath the present office block. As I recall, one of the plans for this site was to have terraces of houses built over the car park which would certainly put paid to extra or wider platforms.

Peter Evans ● 1d

Sorry wrong thread, should be on swears councillor thread.

Janice Evans ● 2d

Impossible to assume someone's background by their name, only DNA candetermine that.

Janice Evans ● 2d

I take the point about the nature of the units to be built although I believe I am technically right to describe it as an HMO. Although this is not a great outcome, I'm not going to blame the councillors on the planning committee or the planning team. The applicant was very cunning having a less attractive option in its back pocket (which wouldn't have required full planning permission) so there really was no choice.Whether there was ever an option of a more ambitious development which would have incorporated a station upgrade, I can't tell you. It was suggested to me about five years ago that the council was courting developers who might have been able to deliver this outcome. Whether this failed due to council apathy or it never being a practical option is something that we may never know.

Francis Rowe ● 2d

I don't think many teachers would be renting these units. Co-living apartments in other parts of London which don't have the attractions of Chiswick Tower, such as being directly above a tube station, are rented out at about £1,600 a month. The target market here would be single professionals who work long hours and commute or perhaps people whose main home is outside London but need to stay here a few days a week.

Felicity Caborn ● 2d

A very large proportion of teachers working at Chiswick schools live in outer London or beyond the M25 and drive to work. I would anticipate that these apartments would be popular with people working in Chiswick Business Park with the companies probably snapping some up to house expatriate employees.

Anita Blake ● 3d

Some people always ask, "where are the doctors, teachers, etc..." for all these people, and forget that doctors teachers etc... need places to live too.

Paul James ● 4d

Although it might be technically accurate to describe the new accommodation as HMOs, I think you are making a misleading implication. There is a shortage of property at reasonable rent for working single people and this will fill a gap. In saying this, they aren't going to be cheap.

Felicity Caborn ● 4d

Once again, the council rolls over and plays dead.Clearly no lessons learned from their previous mistakes with the business park.

David Lesniak ● 5d