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.

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Chiswick Tower and accessibility at Gunnersbury	05/12/25 11:38:00	Francis Rowe
Re:Chiswick Tower and accessibility at Gunnersbury	06/12/25 11:16:00	David Lesniak
Re:Re:Chiswick Tower and accessibility at Gunnersbury	08/12/25 08:23:00	Felicity Caborn
Re:Re:Re:Chiswick Tower and accessibility at Gunnersbury	08/12/25 08:55:00	Paul James
Re:Re:Re:Re:Chiswick Tower and accessibility at Gunnersbury	08/12/25 15:40:00	Anita Blake
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Chiswick Tower and accessibility at Gunnersbury	09/12/25 14:22:00	Felicity Caborn
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Chiswick Tower and accessibility at Gunnersbury	10/12/25 08:14:00	Francis Rowe
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Chiswick Tower and accessibility at Gunnersbury	10/12/25 09:09:00	Janice Evans
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Chiswick Tower and accessibility at Gunnersbury	10/12/25 09:11:00	Janice Evans
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Chiswick Tower and accessibility at Gunnersbury	11/12/25 01:52:00	Peter Evans

Forum Home