Draft masterplan for the 4th application
(Click on the image to see more detail)
Read our latest Newsletter (No.29)
Fourth Application files
Council Planning application search
Whoops! Newsletter mistakes. In Newsletter No. 28 we used an out of date masterplan.
We also got a planning meeting date wrong. The Newsletter
on this website has been corrected.
How did we get here?
At an initial exhibition in November '05 the Linden Homes showed a draft design about 350 homes.
The first application was for 273 homes - mostly flats - was submitted in May '06. It was refused by the Council.
The second application was for 239 homes - mostly flats - was submitted in December '06. It was also refused by the Council.
Linden Homes appealed against the refusals to the Government Inspectorate. After a Public Inquiry was in June '07.
the Inspector rejected the appeal in very strong terms.
The third application was for 154 homes - mostly 1/2-bed flats. It was refused by the Council. Linden Homes appealed again. After a Public Inquiry in
July '09 the Inspector upheld the appeal.
The fourth application to develop the site provides for 82 homes of which 61 would be family houses.
Fourth Application Consultation Starts
The fourth application to develop the Campion House site was submitted in November. The formal 21-day Council consultation for the application started on 3rd December. The first planning group consideration of the application will be at the Isleworth & Brentford Area Committee on Thursday 4th February 2010.
The basic housing schedule for the application is
| 1-bedroom flats x 4 | 3-bedroom town house x2 | |
| 2-bedroom flats x 12 | 4-bedroom town house x 48 | |
| 3-bedroom flat x 1 | 4-bedroom detached x 11 | |
| 2 bedroom duplex x 3 | Total 17 flats, 4 duplexes, 61 houses | |
| 3-bedroom duplex x 1 | (11% - 9 units - would be affordable housing) |
There are various ways you can see the plans. You can: (1) view them in the Osterley Library; (2) download the application papers from the Council website; (3) download the plans from this website; (4) collect a CD from us with all the application papers on it.
This application ticks many of our boxes
W e have come a long way (1) We argued that about 80 homes would be appropriate. The applications is for 82 homes. (2) We said that the housing density should not differ markedly from that of the surroundings. The density for the area is around 40 homes per hectare. The density for the proposed development is the same (higher than that of Thornbury Road but we expected that). (3) We were not keen on the underground garage of previous applications. This application doesn't have one. (4) We wanted the development to be mainly family sized homes. That is clearly the case as you can see from the housing schedule above. (5) We wanted the houses to have their own gardens. That is what the application proposes. (6) We wanted the development buildings to be no more than three storeys. None are.
The Inspector at the Public Inquiry into the third application did not accept our arguments about open space. We have to live with that. Even so, our victory on open space at the first Public Inquiry remains. This means that at least one hectare must be deducted from the site area for making density calculations. Also the application provides for large amount of publicly accessible open space. There can be little doubt that the proposed frontage would be a significant improvement on that of the current buildings.
If you agree that this plan is the best so far ......
R esidential responses have previously been driven by opposition to the proposals (even though most of us recognised that the third application was much better than the appalling first and second applications). Most residents who attended the developer's exhibition for the fourth application felt positive about what was being proposed.
We think that this plan is by far the best so far. We still have reservations and many residents will have some of their own. On the other hand we need to be realistic. When writing it is important to remember that the third application was approved and therefore building based on it could start tomorrow. We have also heard that the planning officers are not keen on the latest application (for reasons which have not yet been made clear). If that is so the councillors will need to know about residential support for it. If you agree with us that the fourth application is significantly better than the third then please write to give it your support.
