REF. 00248/N/P17 Sustainable Development Committee 22/06/2004 P/2003/2373 Stefan van Vuuren (Tel. 0208 583 4999) Email: Stefan.van-vuuren@hounslow.gov.uk
1.0 SITE GUNNERSBURY STATION, CHISWICK HIGH ROAD, W4 (TURNHAM GREEN)
2.0 PROPOSAL
IMPROVEMENTS TO GUNNERSBURY STATION, INCORPORATING THE STATION CONCOURSE AND TICKET HALL, PLATFORM ACCESS STAIRS, PLATFORM SHELTERS, PLATFORM FURNITURE AND SECURITY.
3.0 SITE DESCRIPTION
3.1 The subject site, Gunnersbury Station, is located west of the Chiswick Town Centre, at the base of the existing BSI Tower, on Chiswick High Road. 3.2 The application covers the following publicly accessible areas: public walkways leading from Chiswick High Road to the station concourse, the station concourse and ticket hall, ticket barriers, access stairs to platform, station platform, platform shelters and platform furniture. All of the mentioned areas and objects will be improved to increase the station’s capacity. 3.3 Proposals also include improvements to platform lighting and the station security system. 3.4 The existing footpaths leading from the station concourse to Grange Road and Wellesley Road are not included in the improvement scheme. 3.5 The proposed improvements to Gunnersbury Station are part of a package of improvements to public transport facilities to the Chiswick Business Park office complex north of the site. 3.6 Chiswick Business Park and other non-residential uses are found north, east and west of the site along Chiswick High Road. Residential uses (within Wellesley Road Conservation Area) are located south of the station. 3.7 The site is not included within the Wellesley Road Conservation Area.
4.0 HISTORY
4.1 The proposed construction of a 28-storey building and a second freestanding 3-storey building (Chiswick West) was refused on 09/12/02. This application, whilst standing alone, would now tie in with current Phase 3 of the Chiswick Business Park development opposite the station site, by the same applicant. Improvements to Gunnersbury Station form part of a package of improvements to public transport which are necessary to enable current proposals to be pursued for additional B1 floorspace at Chiswick Business Park. 4.2 Sixteen Planning Applications and one advertisement application have been submitted for the existing BSI Tower site.
5.0 DETAILS
5.1 Station approach and building
The following developments are proposed as illustrated in drawings A_702_GA_300_1 (Proposed station refurbishment) and A_702_GA_310_1 (Proposed plan entrance concourse): • New pavement along Chiswick High Road leading to the pedestrian cross over to highlight route to Chiswick Business Park. • Bicycle parking racks in front of the BSI building entrance. • New totem sign on Chiswick High Road indicating station entrance to improve station signage. • New directional signage along walkway from Chiswick High Road. • New curving glass canopy to define entrance to the station concourse (approximately 7m in length, 2.5m wide). • Alterations to pedestrian access from the BSI building to the BSI car park. The gate to the car park will no longer be located directly adjacent to the concourse entrance (see Photo 4 A_702_PH_100). • Alterations to the layout of the concourse to ease pedestrian movement (i.e repositioning of ticket windows and glass screens). • Increase from two to three ticket windows. • Additional ticket barriers (increase from two gates/one by-pass to seven gates/one by-pass to towards Chiswick High Road). • Removal of the ticket barrier facing Grange Road/Wellesley Road footpath exit. • Existing concrete floors will be retiled in external grade floor tiles. • Extension to the southern side of the station concourse to provide station storage area and new entrance to the BSI carpark. The extension walls (2.7m in height) will consist of Kalwall (glass) cladding (see A_702_GA_333_1 and A_702_IM_033). • Existing staircase widened to 3.3m (from 2.5m) and fitted with new stainless steel handrails.
The improved concourse layout and additional ticket barriers are to alleviate congestion and ease passenger movement through the building to and from the trains.
5.2 Station platform
The following developments are proposed as illustrated in drawings A_702_GA_301_1 (Proposed station platform) and A_702_GA_321 (Proposed platform access stairs) and A_702_GA_340 (Proposed platform furniture):
• Two new glass platform shelters (Length = 25m, Depth = 5.2m, Height = 3.5m) with integrated timber benches, information panels and translucent glass roofs (see colour illustration A_702_IM_040). • Three new platform lamps. • New tarmac finish to platform with tactile surface to platform edge. • New maintenance stair from platform down to rail level.
The new shelters are moved 6.5m away from the staircase landing to alleviate congestion and encourage passenger movement along the platform length.
6.0 CONSULTATIONS
6.1 Notices were sent to 138 surrounding residents. The application has also been advertised in the Middlesex Chronicle of 7 August 2003. Six site notices were posted on-site (one at each entrance, one within the station concourse and two on the station platform) on 7 August 2003 for a period of 21 days. The application has also been available at the Chiswick Library for consultation. The Gunnersbury Park Conservation Group and West Chiswick Residents Association were also consulted.
6.2 No objections were received in principle from any of the above-mentioned, but one letter of support and three letters with detailed comments were received to date.
6.3 Council’s Head of Transport initially objected to inadequate provision for disabled access to the platforms. The Head of Transport and the developer’s representatives undertook a joint site visit and it was established that provision of a lift from the platform to the concourse would not be possible due to space constraints.
6.4 On 22 January 2004 the applicant submitted four additional options that would comply with disability access standards. These have been analysed by Council’s Head of Transport who has commented as follows:
• Option 1 is the base scheme, i.e. this application – without disability access.
• Option 2 (with disability access) would cost almost twice the original budget, is unlikely to be achievable given the requirement to take land from BSI.
• Option 3, would provide disability access and improved access to the station from Chiswick High Road east of the BSI building, however the cost would be prohibitive.
• Option 4, is the base scheme plus a new entrance to the platform (with lift) from Wellesley Road. This option is not operationally viable due to ongoing staffing costs.
• Option 5, would provide a lift on the opposite side of the concourse to the stairs but has been found unacceptable to the train operators due to operational reasons.
6.5 The Head of Transport has withdrawn the objection given that there are no practical alternative solutions that would provide disability access. Council’s Traffic and Parking Department has no objection to the proposal.
6.6 Council’s Access advisor (Environmental Projects Department) has commented that the bicycle parking provided is not on the application site but on Council land. Permission needs to be gained.
6.7 Network Rail has twice been consulted and no representations were made.
6.8 The Greater London Authority has not submitted written representation, as the application is not considered as a referable item to the mayoral Committee.
6.9 Transport for London supports the proposals to improve Gunnersbury Station but has commented on various minimum widths and design distances for the ticket barriers. The proposal is considered to comply with these design distances. The applicant has submitted full details to why disability access has not been provided. Together with five alternative options as discussed in Par. 6.4. However, Council’s Head of Transport found these alternatives financially unviable. The current scheme therefore complies with Transport for London’s comments.
6.10 The London Borough of Ealing has no objection to the proposed development.
6.11 The application appeared before the Chiswick Area Planning Committee for discussion on 26 November 2003. Officers were asked to explore whether more could be achieved in the period before the application went to the Sustainable Development Committee.
7.0 POLICY
7.1 Adopted UDP (December 2003) ENV-B.1.1 New development ENV-B.1.8 Access and facilities for people with disabilities ENV-B.1.9 Safety and security T1.4 Car and cycle parking for developments T.2.1 Pedestrian access T.2.2 Pedestrian safety and security T.2.4 Public transport infrastructure T.2.5 Orbital public transport T3.1 Improvements sensitive to particular users T3.2 Access to Public transport (premises)
7.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance (1997) Section 3 Safety and security guidelines
7.3 Think Access: Design for Disability (April 2000)
8.0 PLANNING ISSUES As such, the main planning issues are:
1. Pedestrian access to the station and safety on the station site 2. Disability access to and from the station platform 3. Design and layout of the ticket hall 4. Bicycle parking
Pedestrian safety to and from the station 8.1 The primary focus of the scheme is to increase the station’s capacity but the footpaths leading to the concourse from Grange Road and Wellesley Road are not included in the boundaries of the application site. The footpaths fall outside of the ownership/control of Network Rail. 8.2 In terms of Council policy ENV-B.1.9 any new developments or refurbishments should be designed to create a safe and secure environments and to reduce the opportunities for crime in accordance with Section 3 of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, 1997. In this regard both footpaths should comply with the following criteria: • Should be well overlooked by adjacent buildings, blank walls should be avoided. • Should have clear sightlines and be well lit. High fences on either side should be avoided. • Where appropriate other security measures, e.g. closed circuit television cameras, should be considered. • Clear sign posting would also be required.
8.3 The current proposal would not improve pedestrian safety and would not enhance the quality of the pedestrian environment in terms of the above-mentioned policies. The existing footpaths are poorly lit at night and during winter months and sight lines are obscured due to overhanging tree branches and shrubs of adjacent residential properties. However, as the footpaths are not within the boundaries of the site, the improvement thereof cannot be addressed through this application.
Pedestrian access to and from the platform 8.4 There is expected to be an increase in pedestrian volumes to and from the station due to an increase in public transport users (British Rail and London Underground) to and from the new Chiswick Business Park office development north of Gunnersbury Station. An increase in the number of wheelchair users should also be anticipated. 8.5 In terms of Council Policy ENV-B.1.8, T.3.1 and T.3.2 all new development and refurbishments are required to make provisions for the needs of people with mobility disabilities. The Council will also liase with transport operators to press for the development of a fully wheelchair accessible public transport network. 8.6 Although entrances to the concourse/ticket hall are level (and located at public walkways level) no proposals are made to provide access for wheelchair users between concourse and platform levels. 8.7 Although the existing staircase is widened and provided with two landings, to ease movement and accommodate greater pedestrian volumes, provision has not been made for a wheelchair lift. Council’s Head of Transport initially objected to inadequate provision for disabled access to the platforms. At a meeting with the developers on 24 November 2003, it was again brought to the Council’s attention that it is physically impossible to include a wheelchair lift from the platform to the concourse given space constraints. The Head of Transport and the developer’s consulting engineer, Jeremy Lloyd, undertook a joint site visit to confirm this. It was calculated on-site that it is not possible to accommodate a chair lift in the current scheme. The Head of Transport has withdrawn the objection given that alternative solutions are submitted for providing disability access. 8.8 On 22 January 2004 the applicant submitted five alternative options, which were discussed in Section 6.4 of this report. The Head of Transport found the alternatives financially unviable and support the submitted base scheme. 8.9 In the light of the details submitted the proposal is supported by Council’s Head of Transport.
Design and layout of the ticket hall 8.10 The proposal seeks to improve capacity due to an anticipated increase in passenger volumes. The following development is proposed: repositioning of glass screens at the ticket barrier approach; increasing the number of ticket barriers from two gates/one by-pass to seven gates/one by-pass (towards Chiswick High Road); repositioning the ticket barrier towards the Grange Road/Wellesley Road footpaths; increasing the number of ticket windows from two to three windows, and installing two automated ticket machines. 8.11 The minimum distance between the proposed ticket barriers and automated ticket machines should be 4m (plus an additional gate line run off of 6m) according to comments submitted by Transport for London (TfL). The proposed distance is 3m which does not meet these standards. TfL has also commented on the concentration of the ticket machines, ticket windows and ticket barriers in such a small corner, which is likely to cause congestion, as queues for the ticket facilities will block the gate line. 8.12 TfL would also like to see improvements made to provide disabled access to the platform. 8.13 According to Hounslow Council’s Head of Transport, if Gunnersbury station was to be served by the proposed Crossrail scheme, further modifications might be necessary. TfL responded as follows: “If Crossrail were to serve Gunnersbury (station) there may be the need to further modify the station though, in the view of Crossrail’s timescale; it would be inappropriate to hinder the developers aspirations for redevelopment at this present time”.
Bicycle parking 8.14 In terms of Appendix 4 of Council’s UDP, 2001, five bicycle parking spaces should be provided per train (peak period). The twenty bicycle parking spaces proposed are insufficient (as more than four trains arrive and depart from the station during peak periods). 8.15 Council’s Access advisor (Environmental Projects Department) has commented that the proposed bicycle parking is not located on the application site but on Council land. Planning permission should therefore need to be gained. 8.16 According to Council’s Head of Transport the proposed position of bicycle stands, within the shoulder of existing Chiswick High Road, is not favourable. The proposed locality will be affected by future bus stop upgrades in front of the BSI building which in turn has implications on Council policy T.2.4 (Public transport infrastructure).
9.0 EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IMPICATIONS
9.1 Although there is a departure from Council’s policy ENV-B.1.8 (Access and facilities for people with disabilities), T3.1 (Improvements sensitive to particular users) and Think Access Guidelines, sufficient details have been provided as to why disability access has not been provided between the station concourse and platform level. The cost implication for providing disability access far outweighs the base scheme budget and would therefore not be financially viable. Details of this conclusion are discussed in Paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of this report.
10.0 CONCLUSION
10.1 Despite a departure from policy ENV-B1.8, T3.1 and Think Access Guidelines, the proposed refurbishment of Gunnersbury station is considered to be an overall improvement to the existing visibility, appearance, accessibility, and efficiency of the station in terms of other relevant Council policy. The proposal is considered to enhance the area of land that lies within the ownership of the applicant. The proposal is considered to improve the station’s capacity to handle an increase in commuter volumes generated by the Chiswick Business Park office development north of the station. The proposal is therefore considered to satisfy part of the need for improved public transport generated by Chiswick Business Park development.
11.0 RECOMMENDATION
11.1 To grant planning permission for the following reason:
11.2 The improvements to Gunnersbury station, incorporating the station concourse and ticket hall, platform access stairs, platform shelters, platform furniture and security, is considered to be an overall improvement to the existing visibility, appearance, accessibility, and efficiency of the station in terms policies ENV-B.1.1 (New development), ENV-B.1.9 (Safety and security), T1.4 (Car and cycle parking for developments), T.2.1 (Pedestrian access), T.2.2 (Pedestrian safety and security), T.2.4 (Public transport infrastructure), T.2.5 (Orbital public transport), and T3.2(Access to Public transport (premises) despite a departure from policies ENV-B.1.8 Access and facilities for people with disabilities and T3.1 (Improvements sensitive to particular users).
12.0 CONDITIONS 12.1 A1 – Time limit 12.2 B5 – Detailed application 12.3 C29 – Hours of Construction
13.0 REASONS
13.1 A1 13.2 B5 13.3 C29