Forum Topic

Sainsbury's plans

Hundreds of new flats, using already overburdened infrastructure, sounds like a really terrible idea!

Rae Lewis ● 32d61 Comments

Even keyworker housing is often offered at 80% of market rent which in Chiswick would be beyond the means of many NHS workers. As this was a NHS development maybe the terms are more generous but, if most remain unoccupied, then maybe not.The coverage so far seems to point to the Sainsbury's development not having many affordable units. Everyone I know who has moved into a 'genuinely affordable' flat has not been happy with the experience whether it is discount to market rent or shared ownership. It is right to say that social rent is the only good option for people on lower or even middling incomes but most have no chance of getting one.

Felicity Caborn ● 1d

Weren't the Chiswick Health Centre places for NHS staff only? That aside, whoever is in charge has taken an age to fill the building.

Gordon McDonald ● 3d

I think increasingly people are realising that 'affordables' aren't really affordable at all, or involve the buyers in questionable part-buying deals. Genuine social housing is the only answer.

Peter Evans ● 3d

If only....I take it you are aware that many of the affordable homes built adjoining Chiswick Health Centre remain empty, like many of the flats built in Brentford in recent years.

Mandy Waters ● 4d

Dunno, Michael, where's the harm in advocating for a tunnel especially from developers and Sainsburys who have deep pockets?What was it you used to say "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good" with regard to CS9?  People advocated for better and we got mediocre, at best.You seem to be advocating for very little, if that, and somehow you expect to get what exactly?

David Lesniak ● 5d

Chiswick Park unfortunately has been ignored for too long and imho it's now become run down.Listed building status cannot be used as an excuse; the staff remain helpful.There should be a level playing field with all  of the adjoining stations Chiswick Park still needs stop information signage particularly for safety reasons.Leaking stairways should not be accepted  again primarily for health and safety reasons which should prevail.

Tony Antares ● 5d

I am convinced there won't be a tunnel to get across Acton Lane between the Sainsburys development site and Chiswick Park station.  There is a surface crossing already.  Crossing Acton Lane is hardly an insurmountable barrier.  There could be further improvements to the surface route.  For example, putting in signals to stop all traffic in front of the station then pedestrians cross directly in front rather than a diversion to the zebras.I've said nothing about accessible access at Chiswick Park station itself, getting from the station entrance hall to the platforms.  This may be perfectly feasible.  It would be a better use of funding from the development than a totally unnecessary and hugely expensive tunnel just to get across Acton Lane.

Michael Robinson ● 6d

Andrew, I haven't seen the drawings myself. But from what I was gathering in this discussion they were pretty schematic. Not appropriate IMO to engage the public without something more substantive. Models would come in handy and tell a story drawings never can.Having prepared plans/models for developers in the past, I was just going on that protocol. I also think many of these projects are more design/build than not. The speed with which they are "developed" suggests those door knobs aren't in the specs as they once were.

David Lesniak ● 6d

That presumes David that the designs we are being shown are the most detailed available. If they are looking to submit a full planning application this year — there are probably drawings already which include the type of door knobs to be used.

Andrew OSullivan ● 7d

Call me crazy, but if the plans were sketchy at best (no pun intended) there is still plenty of time to add/subtract anything. It's called design development.

David Lesniak ● 7d

We already have the outline site plans so it won't be news that this isn't happening.The question is why not. At Gunnersbury the developers, although they were unwilling to pay for it, did ensure that improved accessibility at the station wasn't blocked by whatever was built at the site.Could something have been done at Chiswick Park? Only you seem 100% convinced that it couldn't but you haven't presented, and nobody else has been able to find, categorical evidence that this is the case.It defies belief that someone at some point didn't look at this as a possibility because it could have significantly added to the accessibility of the development by delivering public transport literally on the doorstep. Maybe it was ruled out because in engineering terms it was indeed bonkers but would it not then be likely that the developer would disclose this to show good faith in increasing site access for the general public? Isn't the more likely explanation that it was perfectly feasible but they felt the people who were going to buy their flats wouldn't like the public being able to walk through the estate and the need for privacy outweighed the benefit of a shorter walk to the tube?

Mark Evans ● 7d

I think you are perfectly illustrating the limitations of AI by claiming "every time the answer was 2m" because I just did a search on Google Gemini for "what is minimum depth of tunnel under railway line in uk" and it returned "In the UK, there is no single "universal" depth for a tunnel under a railway line because the requirement depends heavily on the tunnel's purpose".If you believe the correct answer is  "always 2m" rather than  "it depends" then I can't really help you.And no, the site developers can't just choose to build a tunnel given the permissions required.Anyway, it is just a bonkers idea and it is safe to say there will be no such thing in the site plans when they are produced.

Michael Robinson ● 8d

No, in reality, the other normal 34,000 or so people in Chiswick are not interested if flats get built or not.

Julian Pavey ● 8d

Yes, the other normal 34,000 or so people in Chiswick just want them to get on with it so there are more homes available to people who can provide local services, spend in local businesses, and ensure the economy grows so we keep our triple-locked pensioners in the style to which they are accustomed. 

John Hall ● 9d

I think the low response rate - just 79 - is staggering, but inevitable given all previous responses to consultations have been completely ignored. Perhaps if people had faith in local democracy they would actively engage. Or is there another reason?

Mandy Waters ● 9d

No Michael. I did specify that it would be for a pedestrian access subway tunnel and everytime the answer was 2 metres. I think you may be getting confused with the extra depth that would be required if there was existing pipework (which in this context there very well may be but we don't know.)I think you misunderstood what Andrew said - "There is space for a gentle ramp into the tunnel with lifts at the station end which could be designed in a way to make at least one platform fully accessible."Anyone who is interested in that matter will conclude that Sainsbury's and Berkeley possibly could have built a tunnel had they chosen to. If you want to disagree that's your prerogative but as far as I can see you are just taking a contrary position to that of other contributors you don't like because you'd hate to admit they were right.

Mark Evans ● 10d

Well, I wasn't the one who mentioned a ramp initially, that would have been Francis Rowe's mate Andrew O'Sullivan.  Feel free to tell him that he is away with the fairies with that idea.There wouldn't be a lift without other ways to access a tunnel as well (such as steps) given the possibility of electrical or mechanical failures.I think you need to do more research on works under railway likes.  A minimum of 2m depth refers to pipework, not tunnels of bore at least 3m.There is a lot of people proclaiming the impact to the surrounding area despite the complete absence of any site plans.The chiswickw4 brains trust strikes again.

Michael Robinson ● 10d

In this context 'bonkers' and 'unfeasible' are synonyms but I think your original over the top reaction was on the misunderstanding that the station end access would be via a ramp rather than a lift. Like all of us, I am developing my skills on social media but I can't get any AI LMM to tell me anything other that you generally can put a tunnel two metres under train tracks and that the underpass should be around three metres high. Perhaps you should stop digging the hole you are in particularly when it gets you to 15 metres!Arguing the toss on this is distracting from the more important point that this development, rather than opening up the site, is closing more of it off making getting around Chiswick slightly more difficult. There may have been engineering reasons that ruled out the tunnel and it would have been a fiendishly complex project to advance due to the competing interests of Ealing Council, Hounslow Council, TfL and Network Rail. Even so, the real reason it doesn't seem to have been even considered is that the developer doesn't want people who don't live in the new flats to be on this part of the site. You'll be able to drive in via Acton Lane but that will be it.

Mark Evans ● 10d

Meanwhile I see that the developers have remarked about the low level of interest shown in their recent public shows, but that's probably because they had very little of interest about their proposed development actually on show! I hope they don't now jump straight to the 'we've done our consultation so we can just get on with it' stage!

Peter Evans ● 10d

Have used tunnels beneath railway lines, when a train passed the lights would flicker or go out and bits would fall from the roof, would hope they have improved since then it was some time ago, very scary.

Janice Evans ● 11d

I asked Google Gemini and it came up with the following:- Minimum height of train tunnels in the UK - 4m as I have already mentioned.- Minimum distance for works under a railway line - not a single answer but ranges between 2m for pipework to 15m for larger bore tunnels- Recommended height of ceiling for pedestrian walkways, absolutely minimum 2.1m to recommended 3m The height of Chiswick Park Station above the District line tunnel isn't included and no point asking AI for this.The problem here isn't the ability for AI to answer a question, but the ability of the questioner to ask something sensible...

Michael Robinson ● 11d

I didn't say a tunnel was unfeasible - most things are possible if you throw enough money at them.However in the case of this foot tunnel, it is clear that it would be hugely expensive involving tunnelling at a to-be-determined depth* under a working railway line and none of the tunnel fans have been able to explain why it is actually needed given there is already a surface route.When it comes to funding available from the development, there will be many better things it could be spent on, such as providing step-free access at Chiswick Park station itself.* clearly not the depth mentioned by Francis Rowe as that would have a foot tunnel in the middle of a District line train.

Michael Robinson ● 11d

Good point. If I walking home in the evening I will usually cut through the car park and the store rather than go via Essex Place because it feels safer with more people around.

Anita Blake ● 11d

With Gemini and Claude I found it impossible to ask a question that would make either admit the tunnel was unfeasible from an engineering standpoint. If you are going to claim it is not it would be helpful to hear why.The problem Sainsbury's have here is that the project as it stands makes life more difficult for pedestrians and cyclists.  It looks like the route around the north of the store will be closed off. I would sometimes use this as a 'quietway' through the car park between Acton Lane and Belmont Road at times when there are fewer shoppers. It's not on a regular route for me but it will be used alot by people cycling from areas around Bollo Lane and Chiswick Road. As an aside drivers are now using the same route since the barriers were removed. The alternative route along Essex Place is often blocked by delivery vans and parked vehicles.Sainsbury's may have tried and failed to make the site more accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. In addition to a tunnel there were a number of potential opportunities to make the site more permeable - an entrance via Mills Row, access from Essex Place other than at the store entrance access from Acton Lane closer to the station. That all of these seem to have already been ruled out could be that they were considered and found to be impractical or it could be that the vision for the estate is effectively a gated community with public access confined to the store and a limited amount of space at Essex Place.

Mark Evans ● 11d

No Michael, I didn't neglect to factor in tunnel height. As I said previously - give it a try and see what answer you come up with.

Francis Rowe ● 12d

Yes, I have no idea how far below a rail line a tunnel would need to be built as that will depend on all sort of unknowns such as the results of geotechnical surveys etc.Your use of AI certainly demonstrates garbage-in garbage out, as the minimum height required for train tunnels is readily available and you appear to have forgotten to factor in the height of the foot tunnel itself.Every time I poke holes in your claims you dismiss this as a "rant" but it is just a bit of amusement pointing out your habitual bullshitting.

Michael Robinson ● 12d

Michael, neither of us has the engineering expertise to comment authoratively on what is and isn't viable. I don't know where your figure of 15 metres for tunnel depth comes from but I gave different AI models the details and they both came back to me with the same range quoting current Network Rail guidelines that would apply given local circumstances. You'll no doubt say 'garbage in garbage out' but why not give it a try yourself and see if you get a different answer?I don't think anyone on this thread is going to take umbrage at being described as 'bonkers' by you as your definition of that word is someone who disagrees with you by the slightest degree. However, it does seem to me a perfectly sensible conclusion that a tunnel here might have been possible in different circumstances. If you can come up with a non-ranty argument to show to us why this is not the case. I'm sure there would be some interest.

Francis Rowe ● 12d

Doing anything at Gunnersbury was always going to be a total nightmare - owned by Network Rail, operated by TfL, dependencies on the owner of the building above the station and the surrounding land.I think with the footbridge to CBP, they needed to negotiate with Network Rail for a time window to install the span over the railway line (currently only used for freight) but that would have been easy compared to the dogs dinner of different stakeholders and dependencies at Gunnersbury.

Michael Robinson ● 13d

Private developments like this always seem loath to provide bonus improvements like better access to tube stations. It was hoped that the redevelopment above and around Gunnersbury station would provide much needed improvements to platform access, but that now seems unlikely.  It seemed remarkable at the time that we finally got our new ‘rusty footbridge’ to and from the Business Park.

Peter Evans ● 13d

Yet again, one of the double act of Francis Rowe and Andrew O'Sullivan jump in to defend bonkers statements made by the other.  Shouldn't you be telling your mate Andrew that he is nuts thinking a ramp is viable?So Francis, if you think that the maximum depth required is 5.5m, let's say the foot tunnel is of height 2m (which means anyone over 6ft 5in needs to duck), are you assuming that the roof of the foot tunnel would only be 3.5m below the floor of Chiswick Park?The loading gauge requirements (so the height of the District line tunnel) for S stock trains is a minimum of 4m on its own, then add to this the distance between the roof of the train tunnel and the floor of Chiswick park, and how far below the train line a foot tunnel would need to be and the height of the foot tunnel... my estimate of 15m is certainly better than yours which would have the foot tunnel in the middle of a District line train.The height of a bridge over the crossing on Bollo Lane would only need to be the aforementioned 4m for the train loading gauge. The entire width of the road plus some distance on the road either side of the crossing would be available for the ramp switchbacks and landings.Plus, the incentive for a bridge over the train line is it would be impassable otherwise assuming a crossing is closed for West London Orbital.Some people appear to think that the zebra crossing on Acton Lane is impassable and a tunnel is needed, but it really isn't...Planning gain for the site would be better spent on accessible access for Chiswick Park itself plus improvement of the pedestrian access on the surface routes to the station.  Not a bonkers tunnel.Still, it serves to illustrate the lack of analytical thinking from some of the brains trust who post on this forum.

Michael Robinson ● 13d

What a remarkable coincidence - I recall having a discussion with a Michael Robinson about the possible closure of the level crossing on Bollo Lane in which he was adamant that a ramp would be feasible even though maths suggested it would need to be very very long to the point of technically being bonkers. Must be a different chap.Not sure in this case where a depth of 15 metres comes from. Perhaps Michael has missed the assumption, which is clear enough from what other people have been saying, that there would be lift only access on the station end (with perhaps a spiral staircase to meet regulatory requirements).As far as I can see the maximum tunnel depth to get under the Richmond Branch line would be 5.5metres. This would still require a very long ramp but there would also be steps which people without special access needs would use. There would be space at the site to accomodate this.Michael is forgetting the context here - a tunnel theoretically is an option as part of potential planning gain from the site. It would be very surprising if it wasn't considered at some point. It could have been ruled out on engineering grounds or due to the station's listing but no convincing case has been presented here that it isn't viable. As has been observed, the more likely reason it isn't happening is that Sainsburys/Berkeley didn't like the idea of encouraging public use of the commercial parts of the estate.

Francis Rowe ● 13d

Just to add.... I'm surprised that proponents of a tunnel are not also advocating a tunnel to cross Turnham Green Terrace as a way of getting to/from Turnham Green station without using a zebra.Turnham Green has much higher usage than Chiswick Park so if you are a fan of tunnels, surely Turnham Green has a stronger justification?

Michael Robinson ● 13d

"There is space for a gentle ramp into the tunnel... "Chiswick Park station is at a higher elevation than the Richmond branch of the District line which a tunnel would need to go under.  This is apparent on the Richmond District line train as you need to look up to see Chiswick Park.Assuming a lift shaft, stairs or ramp would need to go down 15m from the station to get to a tunnel a sufficient depth under the District line plus headroom, at a standard ramp gradient of 1:14, that would mean a ramp length of 210m to get down to the tunnel.  If you wanted a gentler gradient of 1:20 preferred for accessibility , that would mean a ramp length of 300m.Assuming the ramp had switchbacks and landings rather than being straight and continuous, that would mean a ramp length of over 300m.  So the lengths of ramps just to get down to a tunnel would be at least double the length of the tunnel itself.  Of course, you could dispense with ramps and have lift shafts and steps to get down to the delights of a short, dark and urine-scented tunnel.And this is to cross Acton Lane, not a 4 lane high speed motorway where such tunnels could be justified.I will stick to "bonkers" as an apt description.

Michael Robinson ● 13d

Bonkers is a bit strong — as I said earlier it would be challenging but it certainly isn't impossible (according to someone who lives locally who has worked on similar projects).  It probably already has been ruled out because Sainsbury's would be making a big deal about it if they were going to do it. It is more likely it was concerns for privacy of their residents and reduced security within the development that put paid to the idea. The arguments in favour are clear — Chiswick Park station is cut off from the town centre and very few people think of it a central Chiswick destination even though it is closer to the main drag than Gunnersbury or Turnham Green. Easier access would boost its popularity significantly. There is space for a gentle ramp into the tunnel with lifts at the station end which could be designed in a way to make at least one platform fully accessible. It is likely that this was considered because Sainsbury's are proposing a car free development for which they won't be delivering a single pedestrian or public transport gain but, like additional pedestrian entry points, there doesn't seem to have been a viable solution.

Andrew OSullivan ● 14d

A tunnel is a bonkers idea given it would need to go under the District line so would need to be really quite deep. A ramp would be very long and certainly no space for it on the N side.  If it was accessible, that would mean lift shafts on both ends, but there couldn't just be lifts so that would mean spiral/winding steps as well.And for what? So people didn't have to cross a zebra crossing on a surface route which is already accessible (even though Chiswick Park station isn't).It would be far more cost effective just to improve pedestrian access to the station.  For example, there could be signals on both legs of Acton Lane and Bollo Lane.  They can all go red for traffic at the same time to create what is called a "scramble" crossing with all traffic stopped in front of the station, so pedestrians can just cross directly using the shortest route rather than needing to use the existing zebras.

Michael Robinson ● 14d

I don't see why a tunnel wouldn't be useful if it stayed open until 8pm or so when there would still be enough people around to make it feel safe. After that many would switch to using Acton Lane.Using the existing bridge over the rail line to get access to the development would deliver little gain as you'd still have to cross the busy and dangerous road and walk half way down Acton Lane. The access to 'Chiswick Gardens' would also be via steps making it inaccessible.

Felicity Caborn ● 14d

I’d have thought a footbridge might be easier, using the existing railway bridge over Acton Lane.

Peter Evans ● 17d

It would have to be locked at night which defeats the object really, tunnels are creepy at any time I think.

Janice Evans ● 18d

You could say that about any tunnel or subway in London Richard but there would be an issue with safety for women with this, otherwise excellent, proposal. It to enter or leave the station by this putative tunnel you would have to pass through a communal garden area which would be quite isolated in the evenings. There may also be issues with ambient light if you want to increase safety by making it better lit. Perhaps, were this idea to be taken forward, the tunnel could be opened only during daylight hours. That would also deal with any issue of people sleeping in it.

Felicity Caborn ● 18d

Isn't there a risk that a tunnel to Chiswick Park tube station would become a hang-out for winos and homeless people ?

Richard Greenhough ● 21d

You are probably right about this being the first and only phase of the scheme.  Providing the amenity space for residents as communal gardens on the western edge by a busy road and rail line isn't going to add to the attraction of the development. As well as providing an access to the tube station via a tunnel, they could consider creating an entrance in this corner under Acton Lane to the Gunnersbury Triangle Nature Reserve.

Andrew OSullivan ● 21d

It'll be interesting to see what they do with the staff car parking which is by the Belmont Road entrance. I presume it became redundant when the current ANPR arrangement was put in place with staff being allowed to register their vehicles to leave them in the main car park during their shift.Having looked again at the map I don't agree that this is the first phase of the development. The building footprint on the map is two thirds of the site and another map shows the whole of the site given over for the 'building and residents gardens. They will probably go tall and provide the amenity space required by Acton Lane where the station and the track probably make it more complicated to build.

Mark Evans ● 27d

The maps they provided showed a 'public space opportunity' around Essex Space and suggest that there will now only be a single entrance set back from the existing one at Essex Place. People driving to the store will presumably enter from underneath. You can close off the bit of Essex Place that runs off Belmont Road to traffic completely because it is need for access to the private car park for the flats.

Anita Blake ● 28d

I asked about this last Saturday and got a waffly reply about improved pedestrian access. The maps provided show that there is no new pedestrian route into the site. Vehicular access to parking will be via Acton Lane only so they may be able to open up the Belmont Road facing frontage a bit more.

Mark Evans ● 28d

I can't blame Sainsbury's/Berkeley's for being coy about the plans. The much less impactful Empire House scheme saw a huge amount of opposition and was taken to judicial review. By not showing their hand, the developer reduces the amount of time any campaign has to gather momentum. I don't think you need to be a planner or architect to work out there will be a cluster of tower blocks on the site. The disappointing thing about what they have shown so far is the lack of improved pedestrian access into the site. The eastern side might be constrained by private property rights. On the west, it would have been fantastic if there was access to Chiswick Park from the south side of the tracks. I appreciate this would be challenging engineering-wise and there may be issues with the station's listing but it would make the station very much part of the centre of Chiswick for the first time.

Andrew OSullivan ● 29d

Thanks, again, Mike for proving how disjointed thinking perpetuates the problems at hand.Clearly you don't care about accessibility issues in a world capital in 2026. Duly noted. Absurd. But duly noted.Again, TfL is benefitting financially from the Bollo Lane development. They could have made that deal conditional with upgrading any of the nearby stations. Pick one. Any one. But again, you seem content with greed, ineptitude, mismanagement, lack of foresight, etc. But we've seen this since the Chiswick Park screw up with that pedestrian bridge and yet no body seems to learn the lesson. Dumb? Maybe. What's abundantly clear is you can't see the forest through the trees. To you it's only about housing. Not everything else that goes with it. Mind you, that housing won't be affordable to what is it, oh yes, the MASSES, but let's not quibble about that.

David Lesniak ● 29d

I'm boring of your inability to see holes in your own thinking, so this is my final comment on the matter (please do have the last word). 1. With more people set to arrive and live in flats that are - get this - built to be accessible, accessibility issues will continue to plague outdated stations. While crucial for those who need them, the MASSES don't need accessible stations.2. So the crowded platforms at TG tube will only be worse because TfL can't manage to sort out how to stop a train at platform in 2026.TfL is perfectly adept at stopping trains (on the Piccadilly line at TG) when the appropriate (extremely expensive) signalling is available.3. Funding is a lame excuse.This your laziest of comments and demonstrates your inability to understand the problem.4. The words that come to my mind are failure, poor leadership, lack of vision. To name a few.With clearly so much to offer, I suspect TfL would be a much better organisation with you in it. https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/careers/

Mike Smith ● 29d

As others have said, it was disappointing that there were no plans giving an indication of what this development might look like. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that we are at blank sheet of paper stage so why the mystery. I made this point at the first drop-in session and was told to look at Sainsbury's recent developments at Hendon and Ladbroke Grove. Neither area is like Chiswick - nowhere is, I know - but it seems there is a template development regardless of local character and local infrastructure: Sainsbury's Hendon development: https://london-post.co.uk/new-sainsburys-opens-in-hendon/Sainsbury's Ladbroke Grove development: https://www.projectflourish.co.uk

Joanna Biddolph ● 29d

Although Chiswick Park station is closer as the crow flies, I think most people living in this development will use Turnham Green. The flats will be on the eastern side of the development and it will be a more pleasant walk to TG through a park rather than the heavily trafficked Acton Lane. It is also a Zone 2 station with both the Richmond and Ealing branches serving it so, although the walk might be a bit longer, on average you will save time by getting a train more quickly. Also as TG is a Zone 2 station and CP is in Zone 3, you will save a bit every trip.As Mike suggests, the reality of TfL funding means that upgrades for TG are not likely in the near future and an increase in usage due to this development isn't going to change that situation.

Mark Evans ● 30d

No, Mike, I don't know best. But I do prefer joined up thinking.Neglected to mention all the new flats coming from the BSI conversion. That's the one above Gunnersbury station.So again, Mike, take a look at the numbers to come. Everyone agrees accessibility is an issue. With more people set to arrive and live in flats that are - get this - built to be accessible, accessibility issues will continue to plague outdated stations. Of course there is also always that matter of pure volume. So the crowded platforms at TG tube will only be worse because TfL can't manage to sort out how to stop a train at platform in 2026. Funding is a lame excuse. Besides, one would think the TfL land being developed would have been the perfect source of revenue to put back in to the local community to sort out their own issues. The words that come to my mind are failure, poor leadership, lack of vision. To name a few.

David Lesniak ● 30d

You always know best, David, even if you don't.While far from ideal, the masses (= the majority of) don't need step-free access in order for a particular transport mode to be fit for purpose (for them).As for Chiswick Park (the proposed development's nearest station), consider the peak time directional flow (spoiler: Chiswick Business Park folk are coming out/going in when traditional commuters are doing the opposite) alongside post-covid working patterns.As for the Piccadilly line, read up on how funding works at TfL.

Mike Smith ● 31d

Good to see Mike hasn't a clue of the impact of urban development.The masses already know there is no step-free access in the area. So you'll get new flats that are accessible complaint with infrastructure that isn't. Of course we could also talk about doctors and schools, but let's stick to transport.Is that Piccadilly stopping at TG anytime soon to handle the overload? Is anyone paying attention to the TfL development on Bollo Lane yet to begin?

David Lesniak ● 31d

Yeah, we need more flats built. We can then add to the numbers still not sold under Chiswick Green CHR, and down the road at Malborough court, just to name a few. Nice view from this one @ 930k https://www.zoopla.co.uk/new-homes/details/72266285/?search_identifier=692438ff7c2350bd959ca43da45b4ca383516dead71d4babe5ca3a01c00eeae3&console=open&tab=images

Julian Pavey ● 31d

One assumes that, once the new supermarket and associated developments are built at the east end of the site, the temporary supermarket at the west end will go and be built on.The original plan back whenever, when this was going to to be a single development across the Sainsbury's site and onto the CHR frontage, certainly had blocks of flats and/or offices all over it. I hope this exercise, with a few pleasant comms people in 'listening mode' with a trestle table and no useful information, won't be ticked off as 'consulting with the community'.

Peter Evans ● 31d

I did make it along to the display and chatted to the very pleasant people who were manning the stall. I'm not a confrontational person so went along with the charade that there isn't yet a detailed plan for the site and Sainsbury's and Berkeley's already know what they want to build. The chances are that the representatives, who worked for a specialist communications company, rather than the developer, haven't been told so it seemed pointless to give them a hard time. All the answers given were vague and non-committal with phrases like 'we are in a listening phase' recurring (as if anything I or any one else there could say could possibly influence the final design).They were prepared to admit the tower or towers would be higher than Empire house which is probably part of a softening up exercise.The one thing that occurred to me (and obviously something that they weren't going to confirm is that the parking space is going to be shifted underneath the podium which will take up the eastern part of the site. The western part of the site is untouched apart from hosting the temporary supermarket. This site is about two thirds of the size of the planned development site and there was no explanation forthcoming about what it would be used for. To me, this looks very like the first phase of a larger project.

Francis Rowe ● 31d

For the masses, Turnham Green, Gunnersbury, Chiswick Park (within spitting distance of the proposed new development) and a plethora of buses provide excellent links into the city and beyond.While many of London's Tube stations remain inaccessible for many, calling the network "unfit for purpose" is bonkers.Sainsbury's has become a bit of an embarrassment, so something clearly had to be done. Will we get something we can all agree on? Probably not, but people need to live somewhere, and pension funds need to make cash for their investors.

Mike Smith ● 32d

Oh I dunno, John, let's try joining some dots.Turnham Green station and Gunnersbury are already unfit for purpose.Is the infrastructure really here?

David Lesniak ● 32d

There have been various plans to develop this site for about 15 years or more, so this scheme shouldn’t come as a surprise. It seems pointless, though, to have a show in Sainsbury's without any artist impressions of the buildings and their layout, and we’re already getting predictable evasions about the number of ‘affordable’ units. I guess they’ll also save the cost of providing residents’ parking by wheeling out the ‘car free making the world a better place’ excuse, though in this case residents won’t have to drive far to Sainsbury's!

Peter Evans ● 32d

You ok jack? Got somewhere to live before the nimbies stopped progress 

John Hall ● 32d

'You win the nimby award. No wonder our economy only posted 0.1% growth. People need homes where the infrastructure is and it's here!'Top marks for being a prize cretin. That really is the most idiotic reply of the year.

Davy Jones ● 32d

You win the nimby award. No wonder our economy only posted 0.1% growth. People need homes where the infrastructure is and it's here!

John Hall ● 32d