Forum Topic

Sainsbury's plans

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

Rae Lewis ● 11d20 Comments

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 ● 5d

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 ● 6d

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 ● 6d

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 ● 7d

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 ● 7d

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 ● 7d

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 ● 8d

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 ● 8d

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 ● 9d

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 ● 9d

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 ● 10d

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 ● 10d

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 ● 10d

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 ● 10d

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 ● 10d

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 ● 10d

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 ● 11d

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

John Hall ● 11d

'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 ● 11d

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 ● 11d