Forum Topic

Chiswick Drill Hall

I am flipping furious (to use a technical phrase!) about the plans for the Drill Hall (Independiente building). Raising the roof, thereby losing the roof lights? Why? Why spoil the aesthetic, coherent shape and appearance of the building? Demolish a tree .. LBH says it is showing signs of decay! How convenient! Building a basement! That means more concrete being poured into the ground! Apart from the noise and dirt, apart from the damage that will be done to the roads and pavements in the area by very heavy-duty construction vehicles and concrete pumps, there is a direct effect on the water table. We already suffer dreadfully in Chiswick High Road because of flooding, because the drains simply cannnot cope with excessive rainfall, because so many people have covered their front drives with hard standing.Building a basement creates yet more problems because less ground for the water to soak away. Why, oh why, are LBH planners and Planning Committee prepared to countenance this preposterous plan. Why don't they, instead, concentrate on preserving the few remaining buildings that have some character/some connection with history, instead of allowing money-grubbing developers to add yet another perversion to the area.

Pamela Mayorcas ● 295d7 Comments

Well said Anita.

Mark Talbot ● 289d

It would be helpful if people who are sounding the alarm on this could be a bit more specific on exactly how the plans are a threat to the building. I pass it on a regular basis and was pleased to see it might be brought back into use and hadn't heard before that the proposals were a threat to its heritage. The building was refurbished in the nineties so I don't know what is left of the internal features so the important thing is that the fine brick facade remains in place.

Anita Blake ● 290d

While it is difficult to comment with the Hounslow planning system offline, my recollection from when this scheme was originally proposed that this was a reasonably sympathetic attempt to bring a disused building back into use which attracted no opposition from heritage organisations.It would be good to have details of why people believe this is a risk to heritage because the only specific given so far is the removal of the rooflights which, to the best of my knowledge were a non-original feature.It also seems unfair and perhaps unwise to say that council planners would conspire in the removal of a healthy tree to facilitate developers. If you have evidence that this has happened you should be reporting it but if it is just an unsubstatiated smear then that is pretty shameful.

Mark Evans ● 293d

This is par for the course for LBH planning committee.  They are on a mission to destroy all "colonial" (ie Victorian and Edwardian) vestiges in the Conservation area.  And of course if the developer "accidently" exceeds planning conditions they will grant retrospective approval.This is happening time and time again in Chiswick.

Justin Stephenson ● 294d

Yup pretty disgraceful and it makes a complete mockery of the 'frontage must be preserved' in Listed buildings.  Sadly given the vast towerblocks going up everywhere nothing surpises me about either Hounslow or Ealing councils.

Jacqueline Cloake ● 295d

Thank you Mandy. I will read that September article and then write to LBH Planning Committee and the Planning Officer(s).

Pamela Mayorcas ● 295d

I couldn't agree more. It is a stunning building and should be preserved as is. As part of the conservation area shouldn't it be protected? See article regarding its development from September's issue of CW4.https://www.chiswickw4.com/default.asp?section=info&page=conplan182drillhall.htm

Mandy Waters ● 295d