Forum Topic

New monstrosity on Hogarth Roundabout

http://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conplan184burlingtonlanetower.htm ...... please see News section for info on another monstrosity to blight our skyline. Next, they'll be wanting to put up another multi-storey building on the old Tesla site. Online consultation only! please write to your councillor to demand an  in-person presentation at the Town Hall. Note that developer has already received pre-planning consent advice from LBH.

Pamela Mayorcas ● 1069d39 Comments

Hogarth Flyover looks a great improvement

Julian Pavey ● 1069d

Homes for other people? Get it built.

John Hall ● 1069d

Correct.

Paul Campbell ● 1069d

Compared to some the slab-sided "design by Lego", 23-storey monstrosities propsed in Ealing this look quite acceptable. As is the number of buy to rent units, assuming Hounslow monitor the affordable rent content.

N V Brooks ● 1069d

Yep. Increase the size of the ghetto.

Steve Taylor ● 1069d

Hounslow can’t be trusted to monitor anything, unless it’s for their benefit, let’s be honest

Maggie Dodge ● 1069d

"Hogarth Flyover looks a great improvement"In that I believe the present Hogarth Flyover was supposed to be a temporary construction, before anything is built close by there should be a survey done that makes sure the new building would not prevent an upgrade of the flyover in due course.

Richard Greenhough ● 1069d

Well let’s hope they plan  everything better than C9. They may not get a dozen goes at getting it right

Maggie Dodge ● 1069d

Excited to see this proposal includes a separated cycleway through the Hogarth Roundabout tunnel. Would be good news for both cyclists and pedestrians. Also strengthens the case for two way movement for cyclists along the whole length of Devonshire Road to give everyone in Chiswick any easy route to cycle to the river and back.

Mark Evans ● 1068d

I am wondering what the rents will be. Affordable for whom? Nurses, surgery staff, teachers, secretaries, postal workers ... I doubt it! And many more likely to go to overseas investors who will rent out the flats at exorbitant rents. The papers keep telling us that there is a terrible shortage of 'family' homes, ie 3, even 4 bedroom flats and houses. Here there is preponderance of 1 bedroom. So single people but, as I've already suggested, unlikely to be affordable other than to highly-paid executive staff.

Pamela Mayorcas ● 1068d

How would you propose rents can be reduced other than by more housing being built?How can we solve the housing crisis without a significant proportion of what is being built being 'unaffordable' i.e. not paid for partly or wholly  by the taxpayer?Why do you single out 'overseas' investors for opprobrium? Shouldn't we be grateful that people are providing capital to enable more housing to be built to help with our chronic shortage?Looking at the proposals these are going to be dual aspect flats with views over Chiswick House Grounds and the river which will be done out to a high specification so rents will probably be very high. Poor public transport links will be compensated for by basement parking. The high number of one bedroom flats makes sense as a I doubt many families will want to buy here due to air quality concerns. I wouldn't like to live in this development but if the developer can persuade people to move in then this seems like a good spot to cram in more homes.

Francis Rowe ● 1068d

It's this sort of chronic knee-jerk nimbyism that's the reason rents are so high! But in any case rent levels are irrelevant when there is a chronic shortage of housing, every extra home built is another home lower in the property chain that becomes available to someone who needs one.

John Hall ● 1068d

The problem was that some overseas investors were leaving them emptynot sure if anything positive has been done to stop those investors.

Janice Evans ● 1068d

Not if the rent on that property cannot be afforded.Vast swathes of housing in Ealing and no doubt soon in Brentford and Chiswick are seen as capital growth outlets nothing more. Hence the extensive marketing of the Ealing developments in Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Singapore.

N V Brooks ● 1068d

This is a common misconception based on the fact that some extremely wealthy people do leave London flats vacant in areas like Belgravia because they have multiple homes and don't need the money from rent.When it comes to flats bought for investment obviously people want to get tenants in to get a yield on the flat. The only reason an investor would leave a flat unoccupied is if they hoped to flip it quickly for a capital gain which isn't likely to happen in the current market.Research consistently shows that the domicile of the person owning a property in London makes no difference to the chances of it being left vacant.Due to the restrictions on domestic mortgages and the unhelpful tax treatment of rental income for UK residents, many if not most housing sector developments in London wouldn't be built if it wasn't for overseas buyers making them viable.

Francis Rowe ● 1068d

However Francis that don't get away from the fact that some blocks are still empty I believe.

Janice Evans ● 1068d

Ther are an estimated 30,000 empty homes in London.

Janice Evans ● 1068d

Just a thoughtWho decided that affordable means the average wage being around 32k or are we calling affordable to be for people onMinimum payYou can't get a mortgage on 32k even if the place was affordable.because 32k don't get you a garage.So I'm not sureIf affordable in the private sector could even exist.Someone told me that the whole Battersea complex was around 90% taken by people under 50 and 65% of residents were between 25 and 40 yes oldThey are not cheap and most areoccupied I'm told. They do have affordable flats at Battersea butI think affordable is used in the wrong way.Just a bit smaller and cheaper.

Julian Pavey ● 1068d

Give that there are 3.7 million homes in London, this is not a particularly high figure. High rents and the shortage of property tend to limit the amount of time a property will remain vacant. Those that are unoccupied for a long time are so often because ownership is disputed or because they are in probate. What there is not is an significantly higher proportion of vacant properties owned by foreigners than UK residents.

Francis Rowe ● 1068d

Www actiononemptyhomes.com estimate that around 4% of the domestic housing stock or over 1,000,000 is vacant. Of these 257,000 have been vacant for over six months.

N V Brooks ● 1068d

Mayor Khan was concerned about the long term empty properties, whoactually owns them do we ever really know.

Janice Evans ● 1068d

Private Eyey did a great expose years ago and I was amazed at how many 'ordinary' houses and flats were owned by offshore companies.https://www.private-eye.co.uk/registry

N V Brooks ● 1068d

I see the usual developers spiv lovers are on again trotting out the usual bullshit about 'homes for people'.Either they don't like Chiswick much or they love places like Croydon or any other developer paradise?Wonder why they want to destroy Chiswick and turn it into an identikit shithole?

Basil Finnis ● 1067d

So a monstrosity is welcomed as long as cyclists get something out of it? Sounds about right

Maggie Dodge ● 1067d

Where are your grandchildren going to live Maggie? And what will the climate be like then?

John Hall ● 1067d

Notwithstanding that Thames Water is incapable of dealing with current requirements for sewage treatment and has no plan under AMP to do so given its financial state of being on the brink of bankruptcy. There are insufficient schools, dentists and GP’s in the are to cope with current demands. Additional housing equals more litter, flytipping and filth because Hounslow can’t even cope with current levels of environmental crime.

Steve Taylor ● 1067d

Obviously I am not saying that an inappropriate building should be waved through just because it comes with a bit of improved cycling infrastructure.Based on the developer's drawings, rather than being a monstrosity, the proposed tower looks to be an improvement on what's there. These of course are probably misleading but ultimately it probably has to be accepted that the developer has already anticipated objections on the basis of blight to riverviews and views out of Chiswick House Gardens.The number of flats and the relatively small footprint means that there won't be enough parking space for all residents and the public transport links are poor. The 'affordable' units will probably come without a parking space. If you don't have a car and there aren't good public transport links then a bike probably becomes your key mode of travel. This means the development will be pitched towards people who cycle and, if the developer can be made to pay for an improved cycle route between Hogarth Roundabout and Turnham Green station including Devonshire Road then that would be a significant gain.If a higher proportion of people moving into new developments in Chiswick don't own a car then that will reduce the increased amount of traffic which will inevitably result from a population rise.

Mark Evans ● 1067d

Let us see if the good people of Chiswick are any more successful in stopping developments that pack people into sow crates without any consideration for the infrastructure needed to support them. Ithasn't worked in Ealing let's hope that Chiwickians are more successful

N V Brooks ● 1067d

No chance at all. The Chiswickeans are controlled by the dullards in Hounslow Council.

Steve Taylor ● 1067d

Perhaps the velophiles could devote their energies into somthing more productive. However, given their myopia they probably wouldn't see a tower block until they rode into it.

N V Brooks ● 1067d

Cyclists seem in favour of this high rise. Some like Paul Campbell are worried about housing issues,  fair play to them. I think a tower block in Grove Park would be excellent!  A nice leafy road like Hartington should be able to accommodate.

Maggie Dodge ● 1065d

The housing stock in the UK is beyond pathetic. Quality is often sub-par, prices have skyrocketed, we're one of the very few countries still saddled by this feudal leaseholding thing (the only other country that comes to mind with a similar setup is the People's Republic of China) and a level of NIMBYsm that is beyond belief.Meanwhile, homelessness or near-homelessness is on the rise. We need homes, we need an end to leaseholding, we need an end to professional investors - especially overseas, or based in tax heavens - racking up homes to then be let at extortionate amounts.

Francis Sheehan ● 1064d

I agree with you on the state of the housing stock in the UK and you are right that the leasehold system needs revisiting. However, you do need to answer the question how the problem that we have can be solved without 'professional' and overseas investors.Such are the restrictions on the domestic mortgage market that there are nowhere near enough potential buyers from this source to fund the level of building that we currently have let alone the building of what we need.This can only come from people who are willing to invest in property in this country either based here or overseas. By far the largest amount of overseas investment in terms of a percentage of units rather than by value does not come from tax heavens (!) but from individuals. A large proportion of these are from the Far East in countries where there isn't a public pension system and they have to make their own provision. The yield that is provided by UK property is an attractive option for many.If you were to get your wish and this sort of investment in housing was banned, this would not lead to a reduction in rents but an increase as our inadequate rate of housing stock would fall further.Looser planning restrictions are clearly part of the answer but in this particular case there is a strong argument for this development not to be approved. See Val Bott's post on this forum for more background.

Francis Rowe ● 1064d

Just building more homes without also adding the necessary support structures is a recipe for more problems down the line.

Richard Greenhough ● 1064d

Of course it is. Which is why Labour just get it so wrong!

Steve Taylor ● 1064d

Ironically one of the reasons voters gave for voting labour in Mid-Staffordshire was the building of too many new homes without providing any infrastructure to support the influx of residents. They’ll get a lovely surprise then.

Simon Hayes ● 1064d

Hi FrancisWell, how do other countries in Europe where there isn't such an influx of foreign investment fund buildings?As I undoubtedly wrote a few times (I'm getting to that age where I repeat myself) I was born in Ireland and I lived, on and off, around Europe. Denmark, Belgium, France and for a little while in Germany before moving here some 15 years ago. I've mostly rented, and only in the UK it happened to me that I rented from, in no particular order: a Japanese company based in Taito Ward; a one-man company based in Man, though the guy lived in Cheshire; another company from Jersey; and another in Guernsey.Somehow, in other countries, buildings get built by developers getting money from banks, building associations and so on. Oh, and the state does some sort of social housing too. Here, instead, we've outsourced and off-shored everything. And the results are for everyone to see.

Francis Sheehan ● 1061d

You ask a good question and I can't give you a full answer.Countries will differ but I think the UK and particularly London has a number of factors that make the housing shortage particularly acute - a residual medieval street plan that was never erased by carpet bombing, a cultural aversion to residential properties over three storeys, a political system based on protecting the green belt which means that unlike other European capitals we never developed a necklace of dormitory towns, a relatively poor and expensive transport infrastructure and an overcomplicated planning system which effectively double taxes house building.There are broadly speaking three ways you can pay for new housing - purchases by owner occupiers, purchases by investors and funding by the state. The state has essentially withdrawn from house building over the last three decades, affordability rates and mortgage restrictions are so unfavourable that the pool of owner occupiers is too small. This really leaves no alternative to investment purchase as funding most new building at the margin. I'm not arguing that it is a desirable place to be but it is where we are.

Francis Rowe ● 1061d

Yes of course they’ll get a surprise but this is not surprising given that people voting labour these days are notoriously thick!

Steve Taylor ● 1060d