Author: Cyril Richert

As expected, planning application 2015/0881 to demolish Homebase on 198 York Road, and replace by 6, 7, 9, 11 and 21 storeys to provide 254 residential units, has been recommended for approval by planning officers.

Amendment was received comprising the replacement of the commercial uses for a dance academy at ground floor level with additional floor space and an increase in height to the buildings (thus 21 storeys instead of 20). 

As usual now, the Site Specific Allocation Document (page 234) was ignored:

10.4 Homebase,York Road, SW11
Tall Buildings: In accordance with Core Strategy Policy IS3d, tall buildings in this location are likely to be inappropriate. In accordance with DMPD Policy DMS4, the height at which a development in this location will be considered to be tall is 9 storeys.

However, in their report, the planning officers justify the breach of policy as “this taller scheme can be supported from a strategic perspective subject to demonstrating significant planning benefit” (p25).

Although the officers point that these proposals run counter to Council policies, a point also made by the Design Review Panel, the seem to leave the general issue in the hand of the Planning Inspector currently reviewing Wandsworth local plan. And it is not only only noted in one sentence over the 80 page report, but the decision on granting the permission is meant to happen on the 14th July, when the local plan examination hearing has not finished yet but months ahead of any opinion that the inspector could possibly express!

The Wandsworth Design Review Panel expressed concerns talking about:

“No convincing reason was offered as to why the Council’s stated policy should be ignored. […] too ambitious […] exuberant design […] unresolved issues about the public realm to this street“

and concluded “the Panel did not feel minded to support the proposal as it stands“.

To spare you reading the 80 pages, I would summarize on saying that all issues and breach of policies have been brushed off with the benefits of the venue provided for the Royal Academy of Dance (currently located in Battersea Square). In what looks like a copy-cat of the developer’s advertising brochure, the officers’ report says : “The RAD as an occupier would undoubtedly add lustre to the area and could provide the centrepiece for a new cultural district attracting visitors and further investment to this part of the borough“.

Therefore, while we are supportive of the development of this site and of the move of the Royal Academy of Dance (RAD) to this site, we maintain our earlier objections to the scheme.

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

The Alchemist pub, located at 225 St John’s Hill, was nearly totally demolished last month, without planning consent.

The Evening Standard wrote:

“The Victorian pub, near Clapham Junction station, was open for more than 100 years before it closed in 2013 and fell derelict. It was pulled down in May by a developer hoping to extend it and build a block of flats.

It is the second case this year of a historic London pub being reduced to rubble apparently without full planning permission, after the destruction of the Carlton Tavern in Maida Vale in April. […]

The three-storey building was originally known as the Fishmonger’s Arms before being renamed the Alchemist and briefly the Stencil Bar.”

Developer Udhyam Amim claimed that the building was unsafe and that although they did not have consent to demolish the façade, the frontage crumbled while they were demolishing the rear.

They have now applied for a retrospective planning consent to demolish the façade: 2015/2762 – 225 St John’s Hill – demolish existing 3 storey building. The Heritage statement says:

“The building was to be partly demolished in accordance with Planning approval 2009/2994. During this phase of the works the structure was found to be of such poor quality and structurally unsafe that the only option was to demolish it immediately. However the proposed development will reinstate the front façade as closely as possible to the original albeit that the façade will be extended the full width of the site. Detailed measurements have been recorded and important original elements have been safely stored so that the original building details can be replicated.”

However we found several flows within the planning application. First of all, in the current retrospective, they are only talking about the demolition of the top part of the façade. You can clearly see on the photo at the top of this article that a major part has been also demolished on the left hand side. Although it was probably necessary to conduct the necessary construction work, this should be mentioned in the document.

In addition, the original planning consent granted permission on 11 January 2010 and valid for 3 years. The demolition took place in June 2015, clearly out of the 3 years period which would have expired in January 2013.

Although planning officers confirmed recently that the 2009 planning application was in fact valid as they notified of the start of works in 2013 (and nothing happened before 2015!) but never applied for consent to demolish. In our view, a full new planning permission should therefore have been requested to start any construction work on the site.

As quoted by the Morning Advertiser, Planning chairman councillor Sarah McDermott said:

“We are treating this as a very serious breach of planning rules, which we believe can only be put right by the complete rebuilding and reconstruction of this important community asset, using the same materials and to the same architectural design.

This building is an integral part of the St John’s Hill Grove conservation area and its loss will be keenly felt by local people. That’s why we are determined to take action to ensure it’s restored for future generations.”

We would strongly support any action which the Council sees fit to pursue in enforcing the reinstatement of the building in a satisfactory way. In addition it should be noted that – as the 2010 planning permission as expired – the developers do not have any permission for redevelopment in this site at the moment.

You will notice that the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) says:

“130. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.”

A new planning consent should be submitted and if needs be the original building should be rebuilt.

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

281 Lavender Hill SW11 1LP – Big Fat Panda

On Tuesday 19th May, the Licensing sub-committee refused the application from Grand Union to transform Big Fat Panda restaurant into a bar/night-club. 

Councillors Peter Dawson and James Cousins, along with 3 local residents raised numerous concerns highlighting the inadequacy of the proposal.

The report from the officers counted 61 objections made, including 3 letters from Ward Councillors (one on behalf of all the Ward Councillors of Shaftesbury and Northcote Wards). They raised concerns regarding street drinking and alcohol related disorder, anti-social behaviour, crime and loitering of patrons outside the proposed premises, increased risk of violence to customers both inside and outside the venue, noise (deliveries, arriving and leaving, external area)…etc.

Despite the applicants prepared to make several amendments such as reducing capacity from 500 to 385, using the outside area for smokers only, closing at 1.30am instead of 3.3oam, they faced strong opposition during the meeting. In the minutes of the meeting it is noted that:

• Police were opposed to the application in its entirety
• The Residential Services Manager – Environmental Services (Council) said that he was opposed to any extension of hours beyond the guideline hours.
• Councillor Cousins said that the area was heavily residential [and] not a suitable venue for this part of Lavender Hill.

The decision said:

“The Sub-Committee considered that given the scale of what was proposed the granting the licence, even as amended, would in their view create an unacceptable level of noise nuisance both during the evening and late at night to neighbouring residents.”

Planning application withdrawn

A planning application 2015/1597 from Grand Union bars was proposing a change of use from A3 (restaurant and cafe) to A4 use (drinking establishment), including use of garden, area until late nights, with music and DJs, at the location currently occupied by the Big Fat Panda, a Chinese buffet restaurant. With the licensing application refused, Grant Union withdrew its planning application.

Residents felt very well and effectively represented and were delighted by the outcome. However this isn’t necessarily the end of it all. Grand Union can still appeal and possibly reapply for the drinks license later, lowering the opening hours or the number of customers (although the Council said that even 50% was still unacceptable).

We support the local residents thinking that the location is not suitable at all for this kind of business. Instead it could be used for a café/family oriented area, in line with its surrounding.

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

When you think about it, little has changed in Clapham Junction for the past 10 years (although the Council is planning to fill the area with many more high towers).

However taking advantage of the “history” option in Google map, we can see the two main changes in the area since 2008 and get our own opinion on the positive (or negative) impact of the new schemes.

Woburn House/Travelodge Hotel site

Woburn House October 2009

Travelodge Hotel – September 2014

Clapham Junction Exemplar Scheme

Clapham Junction crossing October 2009

Clapham Junction crossing September 2014

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

Proposed development for 198 York Road (currently Homebase)

Planning application 2015/0881 and 2015/0934 is proposing to demolish Homebase on 198 York Road, to be replaced by 3 part 2,6,7,9,11 and 20 storey buildings to provide 261 residential units and 2000 sqm of business, bar and nursery space. Homebase  is due to close at the end of 2015 and will be vacated for the proposed development.

Current 3D view of the site.

Proposed 3D view of the site.

The dwellings should comprise 4 studios, 48 one bedroom-flats, 133 two bedroom-flats, 46 three bedroom-flats and 30 maisonettes styles (1 and 2 bedrooms).

Planning rules suggest maximum 9 storeys… therefore submit 20!

Knowing as Wandsworth Council is considering its planning policies, what would you do as a developer? Submit some buildings of 9 storeys as advised in the documents? You foolish… go for 20 at least!

As usual with Wandsworth Council now, it is in plain contradiction to its planning documents. Such proposal would be laughable if we did not know that the Council has got a record of throwing out its own rules to praise the developers’ plans. The Site Specific Allocation Document (which has just been submitted only months ago and is under review by the planning inspectorate) is stating (page 234):

10.4 Homebase,York Road, SW11

Tall Buildings: In accordance with Core Strategy Policy IS3d, tall buildings in this location are likely to be inappropriate. In accordance with DMPD Policy DMS4, the height at which a development in this location will be considered to be tall is 9 storeys.

Wandsworth Design Review Panel concerns

The usually very cautious panel set up by the Council raised several concerns:

• No justification was offered for the height of the central tower particularly when the Council’s policy states that tall buildings (at 9 storeys and above) in this location are likely to be inappropriate. A building of this height could not fail to make its presence felt however carefully the set-back angles are calculated. No convincing reason was offered as to why the Council’s stated policy should be ignored.
• The second concern with the central tower was that the architectural ambition for this site was if anything, too ambitious. […] We strongly doubt that the quality of materials and detailing will ultimately be delivered on a site such as this where the values are unlikely to justify them. Nothing would be sadder than if the final result was a “dumbed down” version of the current rather exuberant  design.
• In the opinion of the Panel [removal of the trees along Gartons Way] would be a pity and we felt that the implications of keeping the trees had not been properly presented. Such an option is certainly feasible albeit at a loss of development volume. Without a convincing case for the removal of these trees the Panel did not feel minded to support the proposal as it stands.
• From the plans and discussion it was clear that there were a number of unresolved issues about the public realm to this street, apart from the ramp referred to above. These include the design and function of the public space in front of the proposed concierge to the Tower, the management of the refuse collection at street level and vehicular parking to the lay-by.

Strong objections from the local residents

There are currently 32 objections from local residents and amenity society (and no support).

Our objections

The Clapham Junction Action Group is objecting to the proposal in respect to the following points:

Tall building policy ignored

Wandsworth own planning documents states (SSAD) that the site is inappropriate for buildings more than 9 storeys high. All of the surrounding buildings are 5 storeys or less.

The obvious justification for the height and massing proposed for this location (and we hardly believe that the Design Panel failed to perceive the odds, as this is the usual justification for any breach of policy) is the viability of the scheme in respect to the value of the land. However this wouldn’t be the case if Wandsworth Council was not used to ignore its own rules and permit all sort of developments, whatever incongruous to the area they might be.

Daylight, Sunlight & Overshadowing: loss of up to 86 for 54% of the neighbourhood%

In summary, the report states: “the effect of the construction of the proposed scheme upon 84% (NSL) of the surrounding residential rooms is considered to be negligible in nature on the basis that the daylight amenity alterations“.

However, the proposed developments shows a major loss of daylight for some adjacent buildings (p12). Out of 619 windows observed in the study, 333 are showing more reduction than the 20% BRE permitted guidelines (Vertical Sky Component – if the amount of skylight falling on a vertical wall or window decrease by more than 20%, occupants will notice a change) with 109 being “Major loss”. Amongst them : 1 – 8 Windward House (40% will loose more than 40% daylight),  1 – 4 Square Rigger Row (53% will loose more than 40% daylight), 7 & 14 Port House (70% will loose more than 40% daylight), 46 – 51 Candlemakers (86% will loose more than 40% daylight), 52 – 72 Candlemakers (32% will loose more than 40% daylight), 1 – 24 Wheeler Court (21% will loose more than 40% daylight).

Despite those figures the reports maintain that the changes are negligible!

Affordable housing guidelines as usual ignored for the sake of viability

As usual for sites in Wandsworth, the applicant is not providing the minimum provision for affordable housing as stated in the London and Wandsworth plans. A mere 11.5% affordable housing is proposed (1 and 2 bedroom-flats as intermediate housing, no social housing).

Wandsworth Council owns Core Strategy policy on housing states (Policy IS5):

On individual sites a proportion of at least 33% of homes should be affordable, however, higher provision will be sought where viable.

Indeed, in relation to affordable housing, the NPPG (National Planning Policy Guidance – March 2014) makes clear that “where viability of a development is in question, local planning authorities should look to be flexible in
applying policy requirements wherever possible“. And this is of course the usual lines used in the financial viability statements nowadays, with the advisors saying:

“The development proposals are therefore considered to go beyond the requirements of the NPPF and Policy IS5 by providing an element of affordable housing on the site, which would not otherwise be provided taking into account the Viability Assessment which identifies that the development generates a deficit against the viability benchmark.”

As the possibility to dish the affordable/social conditions as well as the height limitation are all factors increasing the site value, there is no surprise that it creates that viability issue.

However, even with that consideration, the BNP Paribas advisors wrote that “the proposed Development is unviable with 100% private housing on the basis of current costs and values“. Therefore it questions either the accuracy of the advisors report, or the calculation of the developers (especially with the Design Review panel views to seek the highest quality of material).

Loss of mature trees

As highlighted by the Design Panel we regret the removal of the mature trees along Gartons Way.

Parking and traffic issues

Over 261 units, there is only provision for 104 parking spaces. As usual, the new scheme fails to recognise the car parking requirements for the area (in particular the over night demand caused by the residents at the Travel Lodge and during the week).

In addition it must be noted that York Road is heavily used during the day and often congested at pick hours. This over-development will only exacerbate the existing situation.

The proposed scheme represents significant over development of the site and should be refused. We can only reiterate our previous statements:

“We consider that the wording of the policies is an open door to all understanding and misuse by the Council to justify any planning development. We have already numerous examples where factual breach of policies is balanced with subjective “overall benefit” in Wandsworth planning reports. Those statements have no place in the document and must be removed for the policy to become effective.” 

As a resident wrote: “It is time that the Council adopted a sensible and logical
strategy to developments in Wandsworth.“. We join the call from the Battersea Society asking for:

“a halt to any further planning permissions until there has been serious consideration, with TfL, of the implications of the increased demand on road and public transport in the area.  Any study should include achievable plans for meeting the demand for those schemes already consented and realistic proposals for meeting additional demand.”

Decision is to be made by Wandsworth Council committee on May 21st.

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

Another tower of 14 storey tower at 56 – 66 Gwynne Road SW11 3UW, near Lombard Road has been approved in February (2014/5357), following a positive recommendation from planning officers.

We wrote about the proposal in a previous article HERE.

As usual, the scheme of 14 storeys is contrary to Wandsworth planning documents. The Site Specific Allocation Document (part of Wandsworth Borough Local Plan, reflecting the borough statutory policies and guidelines for planning development) has got a section dedicated to a site nearby, at 12-14 Lombard Road, SW11 (p174). It says:

Tall buildings: In accordance with Core Strategy Policy IS3d, tall buildings in this location are likely to be inappropriate. In accordance with DMPD Policy DMS4, the height at which a development in this location will be considered to be tall is 9 storeys.

In addition, another proposal of for (only) 9 storeys was refused in 2008 in the same street, for the following reason:

“The proposed development would result in an unneighbourly and substantial overdevelopment of the site, with its scale, form and massing resulting in a visually dominant and overbearing development “

There is no surprise as we already know now that applicants ignore the Wandsworth planning documents (a developer for a 17 storeys in Grant Road said: “there is a number of emerging tall buildings proposed within the York Road/Lombard Road area, the Council through emerging policy in the Core Strategy acknowledges the possibility of this area becoming a ‘focal point’, where tall buildings would not be out of place“)  and are backed by the Council officers.

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

98 York Road – 17 storeys proposal

Sometime it looks like the Council is coming back to reason. A tower has been refused in front of York Gardens last week.

Application 2014/7103 was proposing:

Erection of a mixed-use development up to 17-storeys to provide car showroom and workshop on ground, first and second floors and 192 residential units (basement car park would provide residents with 87 vehicle and 200 cycle parking spaces + parking spaces for customers on ground floor).

There are 6 supports (most working for the businesses and dealership in the area)  and 70 objections including the Candlemakers Management Company Ltd, the local Conservatives Councillors, the Battersea Society and even the Design Panel.

Objections of the Battersea Society are (download HERE):

1. Height and Design: pages 30-33 which show the impact on York Road and the overbearing nature of the design.
2. Contrary to planning policy: The policy documentation (SSAD) approved in March 2014 and put forward for Examination in Public indicated that this would not be a suitable site for tall buildings (above 9 storeys).
3. Negative Impact on the area: The outline masterplan included in the documentation is sketchy and does not appear to be endorsed by other developers or by councillors or to have had input from WBC officers.   The TVI shows how the new buildings would block off views through existing blocks, tower over neighbouring buildings and mitigate against a more sensitive approach being taken by other landowners in the area. This would be contrary to aspects of DMS4.
4. Links across York Road: consider that the layout and proposals as presented fail to indicate where and what form such links [to Clapham Junction Station and York Gardens] might take.
5. Transport and Traffic: York Road is heavily trafficked throughout much of the day and evening.  This will only increase as the impact of developments in Nine Elms and in Wandsworth Town is felt. The same is true of public transport capacity – already inadequate at peak periods and increasingly at other times.
6. Affordable Housing: The development fails to provide anything like an acceptable level of affordable housing – just 16% of units to be offered as intermediate dwellings.

Candlemakers Management Company Ltd, which represents local residents from the Candlemakers apartments also found that the proposal is contrary to key policies in the National Planning Policy Framework; the London Plan; the Borough’s Local Plan including Core Strategy, Site Specific
Allocations Document (SSAD) and the Development Management Policies document (DMPD). They found that the scheme is unduly dense, the buildings are too high and dominant, they would be out of character fronting York Road and the development would be detrimental to residential
amenities.

View of the proposal from York Gardens

The local Conservatives councillors expressed also objections to the proposal, saying:

“The height will trigger assessment under policy DMS4b, and we believe the parameters of this application run contrary to many of the criteria set out therein, including the following (without limitation):-
– an unacceptable visual impact on surrounding areas (iv);
– land use which does not support or complement the surrounding land use pattern or the local community (vi);
– a form which is not well integrated into surrounding developments (vii);
– lack of high quality public space (xi); and
– fails to encourage public access [to the riverfront and surrounding properties] (xii).”

Even Wandsworth Design Review Panel expressed some concerns saying:

“we strongly feel that the architects be given more time to work up their proposals prior to making a planning submission […]  we were not convinced by the application of your scheme elsewhere across the area. […] The Panel feel that more attention could be given to the massing [and] suggest significantly reducing the height of or omitting the
tower to the north east.”

The applicants responded that “the content of the TVI was fully scoped with the Council prior to submission of the application“. Isn’t it what we say when we write that the Council is hand-in-glove with the developers? In fact, they actually explain very clearly why developers feel free to ignore Wandsworth Council policy documents, as they write:

“The site specific allocation for the site confirms that “tall buildings in this location are likely to be inappropriate” and that “the height at which a development in this location will be considered to be tall is 9 storeys.” It does not go as far as advising that the site would not be suitable for tall buildings, as the society suggest. Furthermore, as there is a number of emerging tall buildings proposed within the York Road/Lombard Road area, the Council through emerging policy in the Core Strategy acknowledges the possibility of this area becoming a ‘focal point’, where tall buildings would not be out of place.

For clarity, we do not consider that Policy DMS4 only requires justification of a technical nature. This is demonstrated in the detailed assessment of the proposal against the policy, set out within the Design and Access Statement. The applicant considers that the proposal complies with this policy.”

The planning officer recommended approval (as usual) and used (as usual) the following arguments:

“At up to 17-storeys the height poses a challenge to the tall buildings policy, however, there are considered to be material considerations that justify the proposed heights […] contribution to townscape improvements; the townscape context with the close proximity of substantial buildings of similar scale […]

It is clear that there would be a notable impact on neighbouring properties as a result of the development. This would relate to loss of privacy, outlook and overbearance and daylight and sunlight. Whilst borderline, in each of the assessments, it was considered that on balance acceptable.”

The planning committee decided to go against the recommendation from the planning officers. The decision was unanimous (following a successful motion to refuse planning permission):

“Planning permission refused on the ground that the proposed massing and design by reason of the density of the development would constitute an unneighbourly form of development that would result in an unacceptable level of harm to the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties through overlooking and loss of privacy.

As such, the proposal is contrary to Policy DMS1 of the Development Management Policies Document 2012 and the Second Proposed Submission Version 2014.”

Was it because they eventually decided that they couldn’t carry on ignoring their own planning documents (hmm the officers thought they could…)?

Was it because the opposition of the local Conservatives Councillors?

Was it because the developers were arrogant enough to pin-point the un-effectiveness of the current planning policies and to say that by approving so many developments in breach of their planning rules, the Council was actually changing the current guidelines?

We are looking forward to the future schemes in the area to see if any thing as actually changed!

Filed under: Clapham Junction