Author: Cyril Richert

On Tuesday, June 4th, was organised the Planning Forum at Wandsworth Borough Town Hall. You will find below some comments and feedback. As usual, they do not intend to replace any minutes (that we usually receive only a few days before next meeting anyway… ).

MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING

Argh! 45 minutes spent on that… it says it all!

a) It started with a lengthy discussion raised by one of us on the legislation about offices converted and residential blocks redeveloped. In a nutshell the issue of the vacancies for a very long period of time of premises (shops). If all developers are asked mix-used developments, is it going to be viable? Martin Howell (officer, planning policy) replied that policy is that in town centre they wish mixed used, it does not mean shops only (it can be community, etc) but it means active frontage.

b) Nick Evans (Friends of Putney Common – FoPC) asked about the progress that was made on resolving issues with the formatting of the planning portal. Martin Howell said that the company they use  has changed their customer manager a few time, thus the delay in addressing anything. However:

1. they promised the formatting online comment will be introduced in V4 (September 2013 release)
2. they said that adding people name (when they fill online comment) was more difficult (i.e. they try to find excuses to not do it!) but the planning department is pushing on that.

c) Nick Evans found also that the minutes were not clear about the policy on wide angle (and the point I raised last time). Tim Cronin showed a little bit of irritation to have to deal with that again and said the certified AVR by the company working with the developer are “the closest images that you can get by naked eye” (although probably not recorded in the minutes we will have to remember that).

d) When I took over about the minutes Cllr Cuff started to be annoyed that we get again other the things that were discussed last time. A couple of things should have been recorded in the minutes, including Cllr King agreeing that at least an acknowledgement should be sent in response to letters received by the planning department. Other quotes were completely absent regarding statements on wide-angle images but Cllr Cuff had enough and after saying that no, he was not authorising access to the tape recorded of last meeting, he added that those are just minutes, that is not really important!

So, 45 minutes later…

LOCAL PLAN

Martin Howell repeated what he said last time on the consultation:

• policy maps are shown in the plans.
• changes and updates appear clearly with colours (accommodation, retail surface, new town centre at Nine Elms…etc)

He said it doesn’t stop commenting to things that have not been changed, but encourages to comment on things that have been changed.

COMMITTEE  PLANNING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

1. New rights for residentials since 30 May 2013: outside conservation no need for planning permission to extend 3-6m and 4-8m (if detached). Wandsworth Borough Council will send a notice solely to the neighbours to the boundaries of the property. Objections will have to be made within the 21 calendar day period.
2. Change of use from office to residential: non of the Council bids were successful but the Mayor of London managed to have exemption for central London , which includes up to Nine Elms.

ENTERPRISE AND REGULATORY REFORM

Duplication (to apply for conservation area consent for the demolition) is removed. It will be covered by the planning application.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

• Northern Line extension consultation: representation must be addressed to the SoS for Transport.
• Consultation on Cross Rail2: Metro vs Regional proposal. Regional includes the Metro routes but extends to join the national rail network. In Ragional plan tunnels are bigger, trains bigger and longer. The Metro plan is similar to the Tube.
• Nick Evans said that the minutes and new agend was snet with a very short notice (Friday 31st for meeting on Tuesday 4th). He asked that WBC considers the possibility of deputation before the PAC.
• Cllr Nick Cuff said that they are thinking about merging the agents forum (planning matters discussed with architects, developers, planners) which is rather unattended with the planning forum.

Next date TBD (when decision is made about the merge).

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

There has been various interesting discussions recently in the newspaper about the impact of tall building (very very tall buildings I mean!) on London skyline.

In early March, Rowan Moore, the Observer’s architecture critic, organised a panel discussion about the pros and cons of London’s increasing number of tall buildings.

Despite the recession, London is in the grip of a tall building frenzy. Driven by foreign money, ego and the pressure to build homes and offices, towers are being approved and constructed at a staggering rate. London Bridge is already home to Europe’s tallest and soon the South Bank and Vauxhall will be rivaling the City as serious high rise hubs.

Is our planning system working? [A question that many are currently wondering in Wandsworth!] Are tall buildings blighting London’s skyline? According to the Guardian’s article, most of the audience didn’t think so at the beginning; more did by the end.

A handy graphic showing how London’s skyline is changing

The Journalist wrote (words in bold are my own highlight):

“No one had a good word for the towers now planned and in some cases rising on the south bank of the Thames, mostly containing flats sold to overseas speculators, many of which will no doubt remain empty.

For me the architectural point is that tall buildings are more visible than others and therefore should reach higher standards of design, which is not happening. There is also a political point, as the current spate of tower proposals represents the triumph of financial speculation over most environmental considerations. Is this really what we want?“

The Walkie Talkie building view from St Katherine’s docks, and it’s impact on Ten Trinity Square (a building dated 1922 which played host to the inaugural meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1946). The Walkie-Talkie tower has upset Unesco and been called ‘brutally dominant’ by English Heritage

I read an article about the Walkie Talkie from Rafael Viñoly. It says:

“Viñoly is indifferent to the criticism, though, seeming to enjoy the controversy his project has created. […] He is untroubled by the extent of Rees’s [note: chief planner of London, who has presided over its bold, vertical evolution since 1985] powers: “You can say it’s a form of absolutism, but at least you have someone to blame, for the good and the bad. If Louis XIV hadn’t been the king, then Paris wouldn’t have happened – right?””

I really hope that Mr Viñoly has not the same knowledge in history as he’s got in architecture. Paris was not built by Louis XIV (rather the opposite, he decided to avoid that city and set up in Versailles) and part of Paris architecture has been transformed in the 19th century by Baron Haussmann under Napoleon III.

And regarding heritage buildings Mr Viñoly couldn’t less care saying:

“The view from the Tower is already ruined – would it be logical to demolish all of the visible modern buildings?”

When things are bad, there is no need to seek to improve them.

A view that is shared by Wandsworth planning as the Assistant Director for Planning said last autumn (regarding 102-104 High Street, p.a. 2012/3666) that the existing building sets a precedent for height and bulk, which seems to imply that an application for a new building is acceptable if it is no worse than that presently there.

Coming soon also the “Cheesegrater” (Leadenhall building) although the current video does not show that it will be half blighted by the then fully erected Walkie Talkie!

See also a series of photos from the Daily Mail showing how the skyline of London has changed within the last 2 years.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Where is the vision for London’s skyline is wondering Simon Jenkins in his article in the Evening Standard on April 30th?

First, Simon Jenkins is right to remember the broken promise of Boris Johnson at at time when was running for Mayor of London in 2008. In November 2008 it was actually one of our first article on this website: Mr Johnson had warned he will not approve skyscrapers if residents are opposed to them, confirmed he will redraw the planned skyline as a matter of priority and called Ken Livingston’s plans’ “phallocratic towers”.

His U-turn will be his legacy to London. You can vote him out, but a long time after he’s left you will still see the Walkie Talkie, the Helter Skelter, the Razor (the Strata tower, named ugliest building of the year in 2010) or the Cheesegrater in the sky of London!

Simon Jenkins wrote:

“Johnson wants towers everywhere. He wants them looming over Victoria, Euston and Waterloo. He wants them over North Kensington, Brentford and Battersea. Above all, he wants them along the banks of the Thames, not so much a row of pepper-pots as an entire table-top of condiments. […]

Though the Mayor is supposedly responsible for high buildings, he appears to have allowed the planning ministers, Eric Pickles and Nick Boles, to upstage him. The developments have been pushed through after lobbying by the developers, on the grounds that Lambeth councillors are in favour. These poverty-stricken south London councils are approving everything that comes their way as a result of so-called “section 106” deals.

These deals involve developers offering token numbers of “affordable homes” in their towers or, more usually, giving the councils cash to spend elsewhere. Southwark has garnered £70?million in such payments for allowing unlimited towers further downstream. Because the Government will not pay for social housing in the normal way, it encourages such bribes to distort normal planning considerations. […]

In most great world cities there is someone in an office somewhere — such as a planner employed by the Mayor — who has a vision for the city skyline that he can share with the world. It embraces how renewal should take place and where, what views should be guarded, where highly visible structures should go and not go. On that basis people can debate, argue and forge a compromise.

In London there is no such person and no such vision. The Mayor has none. “

Although the section 106 has mostly been replaced by the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy, read at the bottom HERE), the purpose is similar.

You can read our article: Section 106 dictating our landscape

Filed under: Planning strategy