Roof plant replacement at Building 4, Chiswick Park, Chiswick, London W4

What was proposed

The application proposed replacing existing roof plant and installing new equipment, power cabling and acoustic enclosures for buildings 1 to 5.

“PLANNING COMMITTEENovember 2025 Louise OppeLouise.oppe@hounslow.gov.uk References:P/2025/2433 P/2025/2432 P/2025/2431 P/2025/2430 P/2025/1166 Address: Buildings 1-5 Chiswick Park, 566 Chiswick High Road, Chiswick, W4 5BE Ward:Chiswick Gunnersbury Proposal:Installation of plant equipment with associated power cabling and replacement of existing plant equipment at roof level of the building Application validated: 07 August 2025 This application is presented to the Planning…”

“3.0HISTORY Building 1 P/2012/1302Installation of plant including one generator in blockwork enclosure, two chillers, one buffer vessel and ancillary works. Approved 12/07/2012 Building 2 P/2019/1741Installation of two motorised antennae and four fixed antennae to the roof Approved 03/07/2019 Building 3 P/2001/2838Installation of satellite dish on roof of existing building Approved 28/11/2001 Building 4 P/2011/2939Installation of eleven new condenser units, diesel tank…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The buildings are in Chiswick Business Park, mainly containing offices and cafés, beside the railway triangle, a station and a nature reserve.

“2.0SITE DESCRIPTION Figure 1 Site Location Plan 2.1The application site is located within Chiswick Business Park which is a Key Existing Office Location immediately north of Chiswick High Street. 2.2The site adjoins the London Overground Gunnersbury railway triangle with Gunnersbury station immediately south and Gunnersbury Triangle Nature Reserve to the east. The site is close to the Chiswick Town Centre and its Primary Shopping Frontage is located to the east of the site.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers recommended approval because the changes would improve sustainability, have no harmful visual effect and could protect neighbours through noise conditions.

“1.5A noise report confirms the proposal complies with the relevant policies on noise and would not harm neighbour living conditions. The compliance with Noise policies would be secured by condition. 1.6The proposed development, subject to conditions, would comply with Development Plan Policies and would contribute to sustainable infrastructure. The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to conditions.”

“Figure 3 separation distances to nearby properties Noise 7.6London Plan policy D14 (Noise), along with adopted Local Plan policy EQ5 (Noise) seek to ensure that the location and design of new development have considered the impact of noise, and mitigation of these impacts, on new uses and surrounding uses according to their sensitivity.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Eleven responses were received, raising concern about noise affecting neighbours; the local society and a councillor requested stronger sound protection.

“Figure 2 Plant equipment 5.0CONSULTATIONS 5.1971 neighbours, The Old Chiswick Protection Society and the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society were consulted on 22nd August 2025. 5.211 responses were received and are summarised below: CommentResponse Harm to neighbours from noise See 5.3The application was placed on the Pending Decisions List dated Week 40 2025 - 3 October 2025 to 10 October 2025.”

Officer report

Concerns about noise

The local society and nearby residents questioned the noise assessment, citing limited headroom, ageing equipment and acoustic effects affecting terrace properties.

“[name withheld], Chair of the West Chiswick and Gunnersbury Society (WCGS), spoke to object accompanied by slides. She advised that issue was noise emanating above ground level from a number of large buildings. As well as the WCGS [name withheld] advised that she also spoke on behalf of residents of the east side of Silver Crescent.”

“[name withheld] believed that the noise assessment did not take into account the specific acoustic environment to the terrace properties of Silver Crescent. Retrofitting of sound baffles was found to be necessary to mitigate the unacceptable level of noise from plant installed on the roof of Building 3 some years ago.”

Minutes

Who spoke

A society chair spoke against the application, while the estate’s development manager spoke for it and described the sustainability and noise measures.

Members’ discussion

Members recognised residents’ concerns, noted the reported noise standards and testing condition, and considered the scheme a step towards reducing carbon.

“During the debate Cllr Tom Bruce stated that it was important to recognise the concerns of the objectors but the report stated that noise levels had been deemed satisfactory. The proposed scheme was a step to reduce carbon and create a sustainable future.”

“Cllr Dan Bowring referred to Condition 6C that set out that once installed all equipment would be tested to ensure that it met all required standards and subsequently must be maintained permanently thereafter to continue to meet the standards.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members agreed to vote on all five applications together and unanimously voted for approval, with 13 votes for and none against or abstaining.

“[name withheld] reminded Members that the Application was split into five parts but if Members were minded they could, with Chair’s approval, vote on all five at once. Members voted unanimously to vote on all five together as all were covered by the report and debate.”

“Cllr Sayyar Raza moved approval of the Applications, seconded by Cllr Marina Sharma. Members voted unanimously to approve the Applications.”

Minutes

The final decision

Planning permission for application P/2025/2432 was approved subject to conditions, alongside the four related applications.

“Resolved – that planning permission for planning applications P/2025/2433, P/2025/2432, P/2025/2431, P/2025/2430 and P/2025/1166, installation of plant equipment with associated power cabling and replacement of existing plant equipment at roof level of the buildings, was approved, subject to conditions.”

Minutes