Author Archives: Cyril Richert

The Mosque in the Wandsworth Guardian

Posted on by
Reply

The following article was published on 10th April 2013 in the Wandsworth Guardian:

Plans to expand a mosque topped off with a dome will not be enough to fulfill demand, fear neighbouring residents.

An image of the mosque plans in Falcon Road, Battersea

An image of the mosque plans in Falcon Road, Battersea

The trust in charge of the Battersea Mosque, in Falcon Road, Battersea, want to extend worship areas and create a dome with a pinnacle.

The planning application also describes excavation to the basement for additional prayer rooms, new staircases and a new disabled lift.

The proposed Mosque will measure 777 sq m, which will expand the floor area by 44 per cent.

Sometimes there are up to 400 men at a time using the building, while women use the adjacent Islamic Culture and Education Centre for worship.

The application document stated: “The main objective is to extend the existing worship areas and to improve the entrance and circulation routes which at present are limited and are not viable for the large numbers of people and children using the building.”

Critics fear the building, which was originally a house, is far too small for the numbers of worshippers already visiting the mosque.

Cyril Richert, of the Clapham Junction Action Group, said: “My view is a mosque with a dome, some minarets, is perfectly fine and is good to characterise the building.

“But you can imagine something like that with a big area on some greenery and some trees like other churches in the area.

“They are making two basements in order to make more space, they are just digging down in order to make rooms – it is a bit crazy.”

Liz Walton, chairman of the Battersea Society, said it would be more suitable for the Mosque to find a larger property in Battersea.

She said: “The real problem is that the use of the Mosque has outgrown the suitability of this site as a place of worship and community activity for the numbers now attending.

“On Fridays the use of the Mosque increases traffic delays around this section of Falcon Road.”

A planning applications committee is expected to make a decision on April 11.

The planning application has been refused by Wandsworth Council, as reported in our article HERE.

Filed under: Clapham Junction, In the press

Planning Forum meeting April 2013: some feedback

Posted on by
Reply

Authors: Jacqui Bowers & Cyril Richert

On Tuesday, April 16th, 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.

Pubs Protection Policy

The topic was added to the agenda by Dale Ingram, CAMRA‘s member, representing the local resident group which campaigned against the proposal to redevelop the site of the current Castle Pub in Battersea High Street.

After a 14 month campaign against the plan from developer to convert the Castle Pub, Wandsworth Council has agreed to register the Castle as an Asset of Community Value under the Localism Act. This is the first ACV registration in the borough. Last year the developers were forced to withdraw one planning application after 800 objections to their first plans were sent to Wandsworth Council by local residents. A second application was refused. The scheme proposed to replace the existing Castle which was built in 1965 for Young’s by specialist pub architects William Ingram Son & Archer, is for a replacement pub on the ground floor legally protected bya planning condition, with 9 flats above.

Wandsworth Borough Council (WBC) policy is that there is no need to protect/maintain pubs when already one other exist with 400m (considered as walking distance). The Castle Pub Campaign group said that central government is currently moving to protect pubs (making a difference within the A3/A4 categories). Someone said that it must depend on density instead.

Assistant director for planning, Ms Manshanda, explained that at the end of the day it was a question of economic viability. When there is a demand, a pub will stay. But Dale Ingram said this is not true as everyone knows that the issue is the cost of renting premises and the cost pubs are buying beers etc…

Councillor King (who was chairing the meeting in the absence of Cllr Cuff) questioned whether Wandsworth Council should be promoting alcoholic drinking in the light of recent surveys. The problem raised by CAMRA was cheap alcohol being sold as lost leaders in supermarkets.

Nick Evans from Friends of Putney Common (FoPC) asked if it was possible to have a list of the pubs that must be protected in the Borough and Ms Manshanda said that they can provide a list of A3/A4 premises (not very helpful, there are 1000s!)

Register of Community Assets

The Castle pub is the first (and only, currently) registration as as an Asset of Community Value under the Localism Act in WBC.

Regarding the Castle pub, Ms Manshanda confirmed that there are rumours that they don’t want to sell (therefore the astronomic price tag of £2.25m, having paid sellers Young’s Brewery just £1.1m in 2011). And in addition the developers have just appealed (a few days ago) against the decision to refuse them the 5 storey building.

Local Plan

The revised Local Plan was due to go before the Overview of strategic and Transportation committee on April 23rd.

After the adoption of the London plan, WBC is meant to review and amend its current local plan. Consultation period for residents is 17th May – 28th June. Any objection requires evidence based. Martin Howell and his team will be available from 17th May if Societies/large groups want to organise meetings for them to explain the changes.

On of the main change is on targets for affordable housing (targets set by London); but there was also the occasion to update the current documents with changes in the Borough (in term of new developments) that have happened since 2009.

There are track changes on the website: new parts are in red, removed parts are with strikes through.

New documents to be reviewed can be downloaded here (item 7. on the page).

Protected views in the borough

There will also be a consultation on local views (see our previous article in December 2012). The document has been re-drafted with a shorter list of views and more explanations have been added on what need to be protected in the pictures.

Neighbourhood Planning

It seems to really only apply to rural areas. Putney/Diador Road residents have looked at the requirements but came to the conclusion that it was not appropriate. Surrey Lane and Winstanley groups asked WBC to become a Neighbourhood forum. They were both refused as they did not meet the requirement: they first need to apply to be registered as a neighbourhood area before to apply for a forum (according to Martin Howell, the procedure is clearly described on the website).

Ms Manshanda confirmed her previous comments that in her view it benefits more to rural area than to urban area. A Neighbourhood Plan will have to show at least the same housing target as WBC,(i.e. 1145/year for the next 5 years) and those target are very high (set by London).

Major Infrastructure Schemes

Northern Line: the possibility to extend to CJ has been protected but there is no budget/consideration currently.

Changes in Planning Legislation – permitted development

Property extensions: WBC raised concerns and would have objected. But the House of Common voted against Opt Out possibilities yesterday (as reported by BBC said T Cronin) so not possible. The Secretary of States for Community, Mr Pickles, is going to try to find a compromise between Lord/Common houses.

A.O.B.

Ram Brewery (asked by someone from the WandSoc)

Ms Manshanda said they received a lot of representations from residents. She added that it looks unlikely to be presented before the Planning Application Committee before July 2013.

She made 2 noticeable comments:

1- The Design review panel has been consulted at the pre-application level and there is no plan to consult further. Facing the protest from Monica Tross (Battersea Society) she said that it will be up to Cllr Cuff to decide whether there is another review (Cllr King confirmed that it will be up to Cllr Cuff with the advice of the planners – who are against it apparently!).

2- Regarding the Wandsworth Conservation Area Advisory Committee (WCAAC) meeting, Ms Mashanda said the WCAAC had mixed views and a minority was in favour of the scheme! That’s seeing a very positive outcome of a meeting where only 3 out of 8 people talked in favour of the scheme, and that the vote decided that the WCAAC was going to object against the development!

State of consultation

Nick from FoPC complained about the poor condition in the Planning Application Committee room. Ms Manshanda said new microphones have been ordered.

Julia Macham said that the comments left using the facilities of the comment box on the website are very poor (all displayed on 1 line, no name on the list). Martin Howell said he will look at it and that should be corrected.

Are the letter sent to planning officers to be responded? Tim Cronin said that they always answer the first letter. When another response come saying they disagree, they have nothing to say more but that they disagree too so do not answer. Cllr King agreed that at least an acknowledgement should be sent.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

The question was: “Why minor domestic applications, for dormer windows for example, required to be accompanied by a CIL form which is not relevant to minor works such as extension dormers, etc?”

And the answer: Because otherwise an officer needs to check. It is time consuming for them, they have limited resources. If not necessary it is not forwarded to the CIL team. Cyril asked if a simple check box “not necessary” or such thing wouldn’t be more efficient for both parties. Answers was: well it’s not that hard to fill the form and save time for us as it is.

Are images using a wide angle camera acceptable?

Basically it gives a good idea of what will be the defence of the Council (we summarise the outcome of the decision, that was not discussed specifically in this order):

  1. When they receive an application they put everything on the website (i.e.e they accept all materials). Then they check and if they think some images are not correct they ask the developers to provide others.
  2. They used the images provided by the developers – whether correct or incorrect – in the planning publicity form, because they want the consultation to start asap and the public needs to have a view of what is proposed.
  3. In the policy they use the word can, which means that they consider that some wide lens view can be accurate to what a human eye will see, so therefore acceptable.
  4. For the Ram Brewery they received a set of verified views
  5. Ms Manshanda CERTIFIED that views for the RB have been verified and accurate to human eye.

CJAG has therefore written to Ms Manshanda asking confirmation of the policy and to arrange a meeting to be able to check the certified view as soon as possible (see the letter HERE).

Next meeting: 4th June 2013

Filed under: Planning strategy

The proposal for the Mosque extension is refused

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

Wandsworth Planning Application committee has refused, on Thursday 11th April 2013, the proposal to extend and refurbished the Mosque in Falcon Road.

By 8 votes to 1 (Cllr Billi Randall who thought that the principle of redevelopment was more or less agreed in 2010) following a successful motion to refuse, the planning permission 2012/3747 for the Islamic Centre, 75 Falcon Road was refused on the following grounds:

  1. The proposed extensions by virtue of their increased size and siting would introduce unacceptable bulk to the property and the streetscene of the location to the detriment of their visual amenity. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to Policy IS3 of the Wandsworth Core Strategy 2010 and Policy DMS1 of the Wandsworth DMPD 2012.
  2. The proposal would result in the unacceptable intensification of an already intensively used site, resulting in a harmful increase in noise levels and general disturbance when accessing and leaving the facility during peak times, while failing to demonstrate that the transport impacts of the development could be managed satisfactorily without resulting in an unacceptable impact on the local highway network. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to Policies DMS1 and DMT1 of the Wandsworth DMPD 2012.

The decision goes against the recommendation of the officers that we reported at the bottom of our previous article: Proposal to refurbish and extend the Mosque in Falcon Road.

It follows the main reasons (1. Scale and Design) for objection raised by the Clapham Junction Action Group.

Following a meeting that we attended a few weeks ago with local Councillors and people from the Mosque, it was said that in case of refusal, they would pursue with the granted application that they have from 2010 (ref: 2010/4850).

However, conditions apply, including that work shall begin with 3 years from the date of this permission, i.e. 18 February 2011. The money raised for the plan is currently only covering half of the cost (estimated to be about £300k) and time is running out. A new application will have to be submitted if nothing moves by 2014.

See below a drawing of the 2010/4850 proposal that was approved in February 2011.

Mosque extension as approved in 2011- 2010/4850

Filed under: Clapham Junction

A roller coaster for Battersea Power station?

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

Paris-based practice atelier Zundel Cristea (AZC) has won the competition (results announced mid-March 2013) to transform the Battersea power station into a museum. The proposal is based on the Parisian Cité de l’Architecture model, and will present a panorama of architecture and cultural heritage from the Middle Ages to today.

The most notable feature of the project is the integration of a giant roller coaster in the 40,000 sqm of the site, providing a new perspective to the area and the city of London.On their website they explain:

Our project puts the power station on centre stage, the structure itself enhancing the site through its impressive scale, its architecture, and its unique brick material. Our created pathway links together a number of spaces for discovery: the square in front of the museum, clearings, footpaths outside and above and inside, footpaths traversing courtyards and exhibition rooms. The angles and perspectives created by the rail’s pathway, through the movement within and outside of the structure, place visitors in a position where they can perceive simultaneously the container and its contents, the work and nature. They come to participate in several simultaneous experiences: enjoying the displayed works, being moved by the beauty of the structure and the city: river, park, buildings.

Will it ever be implemented? Or will it be another addition to the one presented in 2010 and the tower proposal in 2008 after previous owner Treasury Holdings UK, was been put under administration in 2011 and the site bought by aMalaysian consortium, comprising S P Setia, Sime Darby and the Employees Provident Fund?

Is it serious? Currently there is no word on the Battersea Power station’s website… the redevelopment, designed by Raphael Vinoly, is still expected to be completed by 2016 and some flats have already been sold.

More details HERE.

AZC project of Museum of architecture for Battersea Power Station - March 2013

AZC project of Museum of architecture for Battersea Power Station - March 2013

AZC project of Museum of architecture for Battersea Power Station - March 2013

AZC project of Museum of architecture for Battersea Power Station - March 2013

AZC project of Museum of architecture for Battersea Power Station - March 2013

AZC project of Museum of architecture for Battersea Power Station - March 2013

AZC project of Museum of architecture for Battersea Power Station - March 2013

Filed under: Nine Elms & Battersea Power Station

Ram Brewery: Our objection

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

The Ram Brewery proposal: architect graph showing the massing of the schemeAlthough the official period of consultation ended on 18th March, late comments will still be valid and considered until the planning officer publishes its report, and even until the Planning Committee meets.

The Clapham Junction Action Group has sent an objection that you can download HERE.

In a nutshell, our letter made the following considerations:

In 2008 the Wandsworth Society fought against the joint plans of The Council and the developers Minerva during the inquiry into the Ram Brewery development.  The Secretary of State Eric Pickles acknowledged that the Society and all local residents and groups who objected were right to do so and followed the recommendation of the government inspector to refuse the scheme.

1. A skyscraper at the Ram Brewery site is unsound and detrimental to the area

All the criticisms in the inspector’s report are equally valid for this scheme:

  • Huge differences in character, size, mass, scale and appearance;
  • Little consideration given to the impact of the development on the existing small-scale buildings;
  • Clear harm to the character and heritage of the area;
  • Dramatic and negative changes to the character of the existing skyline by the new buildings, and particularly the proposed tower.   This will utterly dominate the scene, changing the local town’s character and undermining the quality of the surrounding area.

2. The proposal is in breach of the local policy

2.1. Once again, images provided by the developer ignore government criticisms and local guidelines

All the images re-used in brochures to illustrate the proposal to the public are in contradiction to the inspectors’ recommendation of NOT using wide angles that distort perspectives. They are in breach of The WBC Development Management Policies Document saying that visual assessments will be required to accurately represent what would be seen by the human eye and that the use of wide-angle lenses will not be acceptable (para 2.49 page 23).

2.2. The developers provide statements that contradict the policies

In policies (SSAD), the site is sensitive to tall buildings. We therefore have difficulty in understanding how the scheme can be acceptable, since most of the buildings are more than five storeys and in one case SEVEN times that height. How can this be acceptable?

Applications for tall buildings will be required to address a list of 15 criteria in order to demonstrate compliance with Core Strategy Policies IS3d and IS3e. In theory, each single building above the 5 storey limit set out in the SSAD should have to comply with ALL the criteria. We have gone through the list for the whole site, we find that not only does it fail on the main criteria… but also that most attempts to justify the massing and tall buildings of the development are flawed.

Approving a proposal that is so clearly failing the policy set out by Wandsworth Council would obviously make the value of the local Council’s policy process highly questionable.

In policies (DMS1) it is stated that the site should not harm the character of the surrounding area, taking into account local distinctiveness. Yet as we have shown, the proposal blatantly ignores this policy.

In policies (DMS2 – Managing the historic environment) it says that applications will be granted where they sustain, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the significance, appearance, character and setting of the heritage asset itself, and the surrounding historic environment. Yet the developers find it acceptable to build a tower of 36 storeys that is 115m high, 100m by 33m wide and only 60 metre from Church Row and 100 metres from All Saints’ Church. Why?

For all these reasons, we consider that the Council has no choice but to refuse the planning application. Like most residents of Wandsworth, we would be happy for the Ram Brewery site to be regenerated, but not at any cost.

Additionally, we support the comments made by the Wandsworth Society in their letter dated 18th March 2013. You can read their objections HERE, and to quote them:

“We reiterate [that we support] the regeneration of the Ram Brewery site but not in the way proposed by the current developers who have disregarded planning policies. We have shown that there is another approach to a successful redevelopment of the site which would be much more respectful and sympathetic to the scale of the town centre, in line with policy.”

It is still time to send your message to Wandsworth Council. You can send a letter by post, write an email or even post directly online using the comment box on the Planning portal.

Ref: Planning Application 2012/5286 – Ram Brewery

Toby Feltham
The Planning Service
Wandsworth Council
The Town Hall
Wandsworth High Street
London SW18 2PU
planningapplications@wandsworth.gov.uk

In order to be more effective, you may send your message to:

  • your local councillors (especially if they approved the previous flawed plan!)

Here are a series of drawing from the developer documents (with no use of wide-angle view or nice flowers and people smiling all along):

Ram2-drawing1

Ram2-drawing2

And if you want to know more about the proposal, you can read our other articles:

UPDATE 05/04/2013:

The Battersea Society has objected (you can download and read HERE) as well as the Putney Society (you can download and read HERE) and the Wandle Valley Forum(you can download and read HERE).

On the planning portal there is currently 179 objections (way above the hundred objections received for the previous application), 21 supports and 4 general comments.

Filed under: Ram Brewery