Images from the third application
(Click on the image to see the plan in context)
Our response to 3rd application
goes to Area Committee
What's new on our website?
Site Map
Comments on the previous application
(Architects: Clarke-Renner)
The Inspector said - "The new building would not adequately respect or relate to the
local sense of place and identity."
The frontage is too long -
"from almost every viewpoint the perception would be of a continuous frontage to Thornbury Road, some 100 metres long";
The building is too high. - "At 4 to 5 storeys high above basement level,
this would be unlike anything in the surrounding area";
Open space should be protected - "the proposal would have a negative impact on the
provision of local open space".
Read the Inspector's Report, or our
summary of its key points.
Consultation over Modifications
The Council is consulting over modifications to the application to develop the Campion House site. If you missed the developer's exhibition showing these then you can see the exhibition materials here. This material explains the changes made to the main application. The most effective thing that residents can do is to write individual letters. We can provide help but the letter you send must express your views.
Materials from the main exhibition for the development (22nd April) can be obtained from the links below. There was a 3-D model and a newsletter putting the developer's case. The newsletter includes a site masterplan. It is useful to see the masterplan in context. And here is the Landscape masterplan. JTP has produced artist's impression 1 and artist's impression 2. Compare these with our photograph1 and photograph2 of the opposite of the road. Finally, a Thornbury Road elevation.
OUR KEY CONCERNS.
(1) Loss of open space. The application doesn't quantify the encroachment on local open space (space protected from development). The encroachment is significant which is why the developer's Planning Statement (especially pages 54-61) gives it so much attention. It is against the letter and spirit of the London Plan. See our case against encroachment. 50% of the current local open space would be lost. If the proposed publicly accessible space were to be designated as local open space, the net loss would still be 30%. This should not be accepted by our planners or councillors. Hounslow /London guidelines say that planning aims should be achieved whilst protecting local open space.
(2) Too close to the Gymkhana. We believe that some of the buildings are too close to the noise and floodlights of the Indian Gymkhana's astroturf pitch.
(3) Height and size of buildings. The original Hounslow planning specification for this site said that buildings of three to four storeys would be appropriate. The buildings on the opposite side of the road are two-storey houses. We think that the buildings along the front of the site should be limited to three storeys in order to keep some balance. Buildings rising to five storeys (the developer calls them "four and a half storeys)" are inappropriate. We think that block D would present an impression of far greater bulk than Campion House and should be reduced/removed. A Linden Homes development just 460m from Campion shows what is required.
(4) Housing density too high. The attempt to put too much housing on the site is the cause of the main problems. The housing facing the site is &asymp 30 dwellings per hectare (dph). In the immediately surrounding conservation area it is &asymp 40 dph. Linden Homes says that the guideline range for the site 40 - 80 dph. We say that it should be 35-65 dph. The application density is at least 72 dph. The objective of increased density should be achieved without exceeding the mid point of the density range (60dph according to Linden Homes, 50 dph according to us). 72 dph exceeds London's new development average of 68 dph. This is inappropriate in a sensitive spot in a conservation area.
Making information available. The application papers can be seen in Osterley Library, we can provide them on disk, or you can download them. See also Newsletters 20, 21, 22 and our Green Book.
In a letter to the Council Linden Homes argued that Campion Concerns is only eleven people (because eleven of us had signed a letter to councillors!). They suggested that we do not represent residents views and in particular suggested that there is no reason to believe that residents agree with us on the matter of open space. If you agree with us and if you support our work it would be very useful if you would say so in your letter to the planners.
