Author Archives: Cyril Richert

Winstanley redevelopment at odds with CrossRail 2 plans

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

With the recent publishing of the safeguarded route for the Crossrail 2 lines, Wandsworth Council finds himself at odds with its plans to construct a cluster of tall building on Grant Road/Bramlands Close: this is actually the site reserved by Network Rail to implement the Cross Rail entrance at Clapham Junction.

Winstanley redevelopment at odds with CrossRail 2 plans

Blue Areas: These are areas where the Crossrail 2 proposals have a greater effect at ground level, such as for stations, temporary worksites or ventilation and emergency shafts.

John Stone (Head of Forward Planning and Transportation, Wandsworth Council) submitted a response to the consultation in February 2015 and wrote:

The larger Bramlands site is predominantly owned by the Council although there are a number of other ownerships including Network Rail. There are current proposals for the redevelopment of this site as part of the Council’s master plan for the improvement of the Winstanley and York Road Estates and immediate surrounding area. It is also part of an application for Housing Zone status, which is being considered by the Greater London Authority that is intended to accelerate housing development with this being a key site in viability terms. Proposals for this area include the relocation of the bus stand and the construction of a mixed use development including tall buildings in excess of 9 storeys. Network Rail also has proposals for improving and reletting the railway arches to the south of Grant Road. The Council is concerned that once the safeguarding is issued, TfL would not allow these proposed developments to proceed.

Over the past 18 months, the Council has worked up a Masterplan for the development at Winstanley & York Road Estates. The Masterplan has involved extensive consultation with the local community and an iterative process has led to a preferred option that is both viable and attractive to the market, while ensuring the aims and objectives of the Council are met. As part of the development, the Council has committed to re-providing c. 640 affordable homes under a “one move only” policy.

This process poses substantial funding demands which mean it is essential to enable profitable phases to be brought forward alongside the decant requirement to enable cross subsidy and manage cash-flow. The Council has now carried out the necessary scheme testing, both with local residents and through soft market testing with potential delivery partners, prior to commencing the process of procuring a private sector partner. In the soft market testing undertaken for this development larger developers were particularly interested in the possibilities offered by Bramlands and this added significantly to the attraction of the scheme as a whole. The view was expressed that Bramlands would be used to drive and change values across the whole site. There was further interest in potentially expanding the new housing into other areas, for example the Falcons Estate which would only occur if the Bramlands area was transformed first.

Development of this site is a crucial element of the overall Winstanley and York Road regeneration proposals and the viability of the overall scheme is entirely dependent on the early development of this key site. The Bramlands area has the potential to generate the highest residential values of the whole scheme and the location of Bramlands directly adjacent to Clapham Junction station enables development here to be undertaken at substantially higher densities then elsewhere in the scheme. Consequently it is estimated that 300 plus units could be provided at this location and is a necessary component to enable delivery of the 2,000 + units across the regeneration scheme as well as providing new commercial and cultural facilities which will serve and improve the whole area.

There is a further equally important impact in that transformation of Bramlands is considered to be key to securing the step change in the neighbourhood as a whole and as a consequence crucial to achieving increased viability across the Housing Zone as a whole. Bramlands is at the entrance to the neighbourhood and without change here it will be harder and more problematic to draw higher values across from the south of the railway. It is estimated that this will reduce end values by approximately 15% across the remainder of the scheme.

The Council would like to gain a better understanding of the rationale behind choosing Bramlands as the appropriate land for Safeguarding. The Housing Zone work undertaken to date has identified two alternative sites directly adjacent to the railway line namely the land to the rear of Clapham Junction Station and the Asda/Lidl site. Both these sites contain operational assets and have been considered unlikely to come forward for housing or further development in the short to medium term. As such, these sites may not be encumbered in the immediate sense to safeguarding measures over the coming 10 years. Therefore, it seems these sites provide a potential alternative to the safeguarding of Bramlands, which would ensure housing can come forward at York Road & Winstanley Estates in the short to medium term, meeting the objectives not only of the Housing Zone and the Council, but the aim of Crossrail overall to unlock delivery and service additional housing need.

The Council has had ongoing discussions with Network Rail in regard to their plans both for the refurbishment of the arches on Grant Road but most importantly the expansion of Clapham Junction Station. The Council would like to better understand the connectivity between the wider Network Rail masterplanning/options analysis and the scheduled work streams to progress with the Crossrail 2 plans.

The Council sees a clear need for a joint vision between the Network Rail expansion plans, Crossrail 2 and the bringing forward of housing and regeneration within the proposed Housing Zone. We propose a plan for the area is developed together, ensuring that the optimal proposals both from a transport, housing and overall regeneration perspective are put forward. The varying timescales for delivery of the components make swift collaboration ever more important.

The Council has proposed to form a steering group with the appropriate attendees from all key stakeholders to work up this joint vision in a timeframe that does not pose undue delays to the delivery of housing on Winstanley & York Road Estates or across the proposed Housing Zone as a whole.

Due to the significant and terminal impact that safeguarding of this land as a worksite could have on the long standing regeneration proposals for the whole area and the impact on the provision of substantial amounts of new housing within a Housing Zone, the Council objects in the strongest possible terms to this designation given the clear risks posed to the delivery of housing, regeneration and improvement.

If alternative land is deemed unsuitable, there may be a need to use some of Bramlands for the provision of infrastructure for a new station and a dialogue should be undertaken as soon as possible with TfL and other key stakeholders to identify the infrastructure requirements and assess the potential to plan the new development to allow for this either to be implemented in advance or retrospectively at the point of delivery of Crossrail 2/ overall expansion of Clapham Junction.

Failure to provide certainty on the delivery potential at Bramlands could result insubstantial delays to housing delivery. As such, the Council asks that Barmlands is prioritised such that the impact of safeguarding can be explored jointly over the next 6 months.

Independently of the consideration of the Grand Road/Bramlands site being available for high rise development as intended in plans, we would like Wandsworth Council to stop stating that “The Masterplan has involved extensive consultation with the local community and an iterative process has led to a preferred option […] The Council has now carried out the necessary scheme testing, with local residents [and] the view was expressed that Bramlands would be used to drive and change values across the whole site.” This is misleading at least as at NO TIME has the local area being consulted on the developments of Grant Road/Bramlands, and the public has never been offered any option but a fait-accompli! The view that Bramland could be used for dense and tall buildings is the sole view of Wandsworth Council with NO CONSULTATION.

We would appreciate Wandsworth Council to stop spreading misleading information and for once organise a honest consultation on the basis of a real choice of options for the area, including Grant Road and Bramlands.

The Department for Transport is still safeguarding Grant Road

On March 24th, the government updated plans to protect the proposed route for Crossrail 2 from conflicting development. The updated safeguarded route published extends from Wimbledon in the south-west to Tottenham Hale and New Southgate in the north-east. Under the new Crossrail 2 safeguarding directions, relevant planning applications in safeguarded areas will be referred to TfL for advice. If development interferes with Crossrail 2, either a compromise will be reached or the development will not be allowed.

Following a 10-week consultation (between 20 November 2014 and 29 January 2015), the government and TfL have made some modifications to the proposed safeguarded route, including at Wandsworth Common (to avoid digging a shaft inside the Common land).

While the majority of comments received were opposing the area of surface interest (AOSI) sites on Wandsworth Common and Trinity Fields in Wandsworth (3,728 responses), which explains also that 80% of the total responses (4,038) came from Wandsworth: respondents stressed the importance of these green spaces in their community, it is noticeable that only 1 response expressed concerns regarding Grant Road: the above submission from Wandsworth Council. It speaks for itself on the level of involvement from the local resident, especially when you think than more than 3000 responses were received for other areas in the borough.

Based on the comments made in the consultation, and TfL’s changes to the proposed route, the Secretary of State has decided not to amend the option to safeguard the site at Grant Road/Bramlands for Crossrail2 access to Clapham Junction station.

Filed under: Winstanley&York Road Winstanley redevelopment at odds with CrossRail 2 plans

Bully builders hand-in-glove with Lambeth Council

Posted on by
Reply

Planning outrage doesn’t happen only in Wandsworth, and here is an example of developers’ cow-boys hand-in-glove with Lambeth Council .

Author: WPR Residents Group

Bully builders hand-in-glove with Lambeth Council

Buildings erected on immediate back garden walls belonging to a small Streatham Hill

How would you feel if you were violently SHAKEN awake at 06:30 one cold December morning to find your home trembling uncontrollably?!

“We thought we were in the middle of an earthquake… My whole body was shaking right through to my teeth… the constant movement of our houses and pneumatic drilling sounds made it too unbearable for us to stay home during the day”.
[Homeowners whose garden backs onto the site.]

It wasn’t an earthquake but large monstrous diggers furiously tunnelling 12 foot deep trenches inches away from their back garden walls belonging to a small Streatham Hill community.

Bully builders hand-in-glove with Lambeth Council

Site Shortly After Demolition

Bully builders hand-in-glove with Lambeth Council

Extremely close Excavations Clearly Evident

Hambridge Homes aka Greennow owned by father and son duo Michael and James Overton hadn’t bothered serving party wall notices, claiming they weren’t building close enough to our homes to warrant this. A complete untruth as the complete collapse of 3 brick garden walls showed as well as the photographs we took.

Lambeth Council disregarded right to information

“Many of us contacted Lambeth, who point blank refused to give us any information about what was going on. Unfortunately for them this is friendly community and most of us speak to each other. We quickly found that Lambeth were telling each resident that called in that no one else had complained, this despite us knowing for a fact that 11 people had called the council. We decided to pool our resources and formed Wyatt Park Road Residents Group and act as a unit.” [WRP Residents]

And things got progressively worse. Both Hambridge Homes and Lambeth council continually disregarded their legal statutory rights and treated them with disdain, disrespect, quite frankly like something they’d stepped in by accident. The most recent SMACK in the face delivered to them by the Overtons came a few weeks ago.

“The Overtons don’t give an FF about the Party Wall Act or any other planning laws for that matter… They seem to believe their relationship with Lambeth gives them carte blanche to do whatever they please?!”

Bully builders hand-in-glove with Lambeth Council

Pictures of rendering capping the Following Morning Totally Unauthorised

A few weeks ago – March 2015 – without prior notification and despite residents expressly telling them to leave their walls alone Hambridge Homes bricked up ALL their back garden wall doorways and placed brutally ugly grey concrete blocks capping on top of their walls.

No development notification given

Not one of us on Wyatt Park Road, Daysbrook Road or Wavertree Road were contacted about Hambridge Homes plans. No notices were put up, no one received a letter and nothing was placed in the South London Press. Although as a result of our complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman some ‘shady’ photos magically appeared.

Bully builders hand-in-glove with Lambeth CouncilPrior to the Ombudsman enquiry Lambeth had been unable to produce any photographic evidence of lamp post notifications. (Chuka Umunna told us that ALL lamp posts locations can be identified by the numbers on them). Lambeth couldn’t provide any proof to us, or to the BBC investigation and we’ve even seen an email between 2 Lambeth planning employees stating they had no clue where such evidence might be found and yet miraculously an out of focus, without context, without date or time non-digital photo was ‘found’ for the ombudsman.

Strange Lambeth couldn’t provide digital evidence as each year they issue over 200, 000 digital photos for the parking tickets they hand out. Just where did Lambeth find a non-digital camera as literally every single PCN has an accompanying digital photograph? Are Lambeth even allowed to take non digital photos as evidence and how would they be stored?

Lambeth council and Hambridge Homes appear to be close allies

Hambridge Homes currently have at least 46 ongoing developments in Lambeth alone. We say at least because 2 weeks ago we discovered Fawcett Close, an additional development i.e. one left off the list given to us in response to our FOI (Freedom Of Information) request asking how many other developments the Overtons had in Lambeth.

Lambeth ignored legislation and guidelines

We feel this to be the reason Lambeth illegally bulldozed planning permission through, plunge us into darkness, removed their children’s privacy, denied them their rights and knocked £50k off the price of their homes.

We believe Lambeth did not inform us of their plans because they feared we’d oppose them, so instead opted to ignore legislation and guidelines and sneak things through and then lie about it. None of us were not informed so we did not get the opportunity to fully scrutinise the planned development.

Do Lambeth really expect people to believe that we were ALL asleep at the wheel, that we ALL missed notices on lamp posts, would have ignored letters written to them by Lambeth council proposing a plan turning their homes into a dark prison and knocking £50k off their house value…?

This is not a communist country where governments move people around, flatten villages and impose concrete blocks as they please. This is England, where we have rights! Lambeth illegally stripped us of our right to challenge their decision when they decided against making us aware of Hambridge Homes development plans.

This is the very first time I’ve heard anything about this says local MP

We contacted our local MP Chuka Umunna, who though happily traipses along to TV studios all over the country to seemingly speak on every political programme who asks. It took dozens of phonecalls, emails and constant badgering to persuade Mr. Umunna to walk a few metres down the road from his office to attend one of our meetings or visit the abhorrent site….? When he arrived he was visibly shocked at what we were expected to live with?

“If constituents had known about a development this intense beforehand I would have expected a deluge of complaints… This is the very first time I’ve heard anything about this…”

We contacted Eric Pickles, Jeremy Clyne our then local councillor and Lambeth’s chief Executive Derick Anderson. We also contacted the newly elected councillors, Iain Simpson, Rezina Chowdhury and Liz Atkins, who made all the right noises prior to gaining office but once in ignored our emails.

After an extremely protracted period of time we managed to get an extraordinarily incomplete response to our FOI. Literally no one is helping us. We are legally entitled to light under British law and privacy under European Human Rights legislation.

Lambeth claims to have sent notices that nobody has seen

1 – Lambeth claimed to have sent 325 letters to people in the surrounding flats. Yet not one person in any of the houses on the roads surrounding the site received any notification. We know this for a fact because we literally knocked on EVERY SINGLE door on Daysbrook Road, Wyatt Park Road, Wavertree Road as well as the affected flats/houses on Streatham Hill. Not one person was notified via letter or saw any of the six notices Lambeth claim – retrospectively to have posted on lamp posts. There should be a mail merge available for inspection but ….no…?

These roads comprise of a number of retired professionals and those raising families.  Definitely not the sort of people to ignore something this significant that would so negatively impact on their lives.

2 – Lambeth claim to have posted 6 notices in the area. Again not one person in any of the roads surrounding the development saw literally any of the notices they say they posted. Extremely odd, because as a community we make a point of talking about all the notices we see put up and have been quite alarmed at the fact that Lambeth have got into the habit of posting ‘retrospective’ notices. We’ve asked Lambeth for copies of the notices and to identify exactly where these notices were placed, they’ve declined to answer.

3 – Lambeth claim to have put a notification in the local press. We’ve asked the council to identify the date and the newspaper it was placed in. We’re still waiting for them to respond directly to this question.

The development is a Health & Safety hazard

The development is a Health & Safety hazard in that the local fire brigade found that should there be a fire, there is not enough space for their engines to attend as there’s no way they can turn in the allotted space. Lambeth’s way around this is to say it’s up to the developer to sort out…

The unbearable noise from the Wavertree building site! This makes it impossible for anyone to be in their homes during the day. They’ve undoubtedly caused permanent structural damage to our houses. We’re literally centimetres away from the site and feel the foundations of our homes shake right through to our bones daily. We can feel our entire houses shaking in an extremely unnerving way – and possible permanent damage to the foundations of OUR homes?!

Unfortunately for reasons best known to Hambridge Homes and Lambeth Borough council both parties have steadfastly failed to make full complete plans of any description available to us. We need full structural plans so that we can make the necessary calculations re: our right to light, to determine whether the developer has stuck to the plans agreed in 2011* or made substantial changes without informing us i.e. residents with properties on adjoining land; and thirdly so we know exactly what will be on the other side of our garden walls once Hambridge Homes depart from the site. They’ve had 13 companies in the last 3 years. They dissolve the limited companies associated with the builds once they’ve sold the properties and move on…

We are not willing to accept this THREE STOREY HIGH development in our back gardens, with windows looking directly into the bedrooms of OUR children and overlooking balconies and completely block ALL our natural light..? It will also take away all our privacy…

The case is before the Royal Courts of Justice

Well enough’s enough on the 9th of April 2015 we took our grievances to the Royal Courts of Justice and as litigants in person submitted papers for a Judicial Review. The judge has got back to us saying she needs more information from Lambeth before deciding whether our case warrants a full Judicial review.

Help and support our right to fight

Our situation could end up at the European Court of Human Rights!

YOUR donations will enable us to fight this in court. If this can happen to us YOU might be next?!

Watch our short film by cutting and pasting or typing this link into your subject bar and hitting return https://vimeo.com/119912061

Please, please, please donate ideally at least £10 to our Fighting Council Corruption Fund. Councillors, MPs and the government has let us down. We’re hoping you’ll help right a Disgraceful Wrong!

Filed under: Miscellaneous Bully builders hand-in-glove with Lambeth Council

PCS sales is off as the developer pulled out

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

PCS sales is off as the developer pulled out

PCS (Public and Commercial Services Union) at Clapham Junction is no longer planning to sell its building immediately. A plan was revealed last November for PCS to ask for a change of use (from office to residential), in order to maximise the value of the site. As expected in our article, PCS was in fact planning to sell to a developer, for them to knock down the building and erect residential towers (most likely, as Wandsworth’s officers are currently considering favourably all towers between 25-30 storeys – even in location when their own planning documents say they are inappropriate).

However, with Crossrail 2 plans coming into shape (including a hub proposed for Clapham Junction station) the potential developer decided to pull out, considering the uncertainty of the current situation. On their website, PCS published an update:

We have previously reported to branches that the NEC had agreed the sale of the Clapham Junction building and that discussions with a major developer were at an advanced stage.

There have been recent developments in the process of consultation over the route of Crossrail 2, a major infrastructure project involving tunnelled rail connections across the capital.

This has introduced additional uncertainty both for the current developer, who planned to knock down the building and rebuild, and for PCS, as it is also clear that the value of the building could increase significantly if the Crossrail 2 project goes ahead.

We do not now intend to proceed immediately with the sale but will take further advice, including advice on realising the potential value of the union’s building in Victoria, which is currently rented to tenants, as part of our longer term planning.

 

Filed under: Clapham Junction PCS sales is off as the developer pulled out

Will Big Fat Panda become a trendy nightclub open until 3.30 in the morning?

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

Will Big Fat Panda become a trendy nightclub open until 3.30 in the morning?

281 Lavender Hill SW11 1LP – Big Fat Panda

A planning application 2015/1597 from Grand Union bars is 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.

Will Big Fat Panda become a trendy nightclub open until 3.30 in the morning?

The location is currently occupied by the Big Fat Panda, a Chinese buffet restaurant (food is also available to takeaway or for delivery from the a-la-carte menu, or to takeaway as a box from the buffet for less than £5). Opening hours are Mon-Fri 12:00noon to 5pm and Sat-Sun 5:00pm to 10:30pm.

The merit of this buffet restaurant in the area has been discussed (and often criticized – amazingly some customers expect to get a top range gourmet food menu for less than £4.50 and then shout their deep disappointment!) and the facility could be better used, especially as there is some outside area that is currently not used. However, as most of the façade (and 70% of the outside area) is facing residential area, the “early” closure during the week and late afternoon at the weekend as been little disturbance for the neighbourhood.

All of that is now at stake as the proposal is to transform the venue into a trendy bar/nightclub. A basement covering to full area occupied by the building would welcome dancing area and drinking alcoves.

A planning application flawed with errors/misleading information with proposal to close at 3.30am

First of all the planning application is flawed with errors. For example, the existing gross internal floorspace is said to be 278 square metres (sqm) and the net additional gross internal floorspace following development is said to be 518 sqm. However the total gross new internal floorspace proposed (including changes of use) is… 518 sqm! Later on the application, we read that the total site is ….3,000 sqm (shouldn’t it be sq feet?).

Similarly the Council’s website is displaying proposed opening hours such as Sundays to Wednesdays: 10:00am to 23:30pm, Thursdays 10:00am to 01:00am and Fridays and Saturdays: 10:00am to 02:00am. However the application itself says “Extend terminal hours to 1am Thursday’s, 2am Friday’s and 2am Saturday’s” (3. Description of the Proposal) but also Monday to Saturday from 8am to 2am, and Sunday from 8am to 10.30(pm?) (20. Hours of Opening). In addition it is contradictory with the licensing application recorded on the Council’s website as this states Music until 2.30am on Fridays and Saturdays, with alcohol until 3am (closing then at 3.30am)

Grand Union: DJ bars and late opening hours

Will Big Fat Panda become a trendy nightclub open until 3.30 in the morning?

Grand Union bar Wandsworth

Grand Union Bar has a reputation of DJ bars with late weekend licence, flea-market furniture and beer garden (Google Reviews). However the venues are often criticised for their prominent bouncers.

They have 8 bars in London, one of them being in Wandsworth High street. Opening hours may vary: Camberwell closes at 23pm or midnight, Brixton closes between midnight and 1.30am, Camden closes often at 23pm and at the end of the week at 1am, Chancery Lane‘s venue is open until 2am from Monday to Saturday (Sunday closed) and Farrington closes even late, at 3am on Fridays and Saturdays. Therefore the existing Wandsworth‘s venue opening hours are in the average: Mon-Tue 12pm-11.30pm, Wed-Thu&Sun 12pm-00am, Fri-Sat 12pn-1.30am.

Will Big Fat Panda become a trendy nightclub open until 3.30 in the morning?

Grand Union bar Wandsworth – Outside area

The proposal aims to compete with the Revolution Bar (proposed capacity of 500 for Grand Union to compare with 650 when the basement is used at Revolution) located in one corner of the Clapham Junction crossing, less than 100 yards from Clapham Junction station entrance, facing a large paved area and with no frontage to residential property. We note that despite this desirable location, complaints regularly hit the Council from the residential street at its back regarding loud drunk customers at closing time and refuse collection mess. Wandsworth Licensing Committee authorised extending opening hours in September 2012 for the site, with conditions that ending hours for external seating area will be 10pm every day (Grand Union is suggesting 11.30pm for their bar with outside seating facing residential streets!)

A massive protest from nearby neighbourhood

On the Council’s website we count 50 objection and only 1 support on the 13th April. The supporter claims that “a bar is the natural choice for this area as there is clear demand for Northcote Road/Lavender Hill/St John’s Hill, given several similar establishments popping up in recent years. […] at present we do not have a problem with drunken revellers […] this new place is likely to attract the same well-behaved clientele as Bar Social, The Merchant and the speak-easy under the Breakfast Club.”

On the other hand, many other local residents disagree and on of them said:

The main concerns are that granting such an application would:

  1. Dramatically change the character and peaceful nature of the family orientated neighbourhood we live in
  2. Create noise from people queuing outside to get into an establishment that is open until 2am / 3am
  3. Negatively effect the peaceful nature of the area with recorded and live music planned especially with so many windows and doors facing Lavender Sweep
  4. Cause disruption to residents if people are sitting in the garden area which is entirely on Lavender Sweep
  5. Create congestion issues whether due to deliveries, refuse collection or taxi drop offs / pick ups due to Lavender Sweep being 1-way street
  6. Increase general waste in the area (both human and otherwise)
  7. Cause disruption in the early hours of the morning with bottles and other waste being put into wheelie bins after closing
  8. Create car parking issues for residents

Our end of Lavender Sweep is now a very nice, friendly little community of it’s own, and a bar of any description would hugely increase the level of noise, traffic (human and vehicular), parking, waste (human and otherwise) which would negatively impact the nature of the neighbourhood we live in and the pleasant neighbourhood we, as residents, have helped to create.

The Council refused the garden being used in the past

Another resident pointed out that Wandsworth Council refused usage of the outside space for eating and drinking in the past, specifically due to disturbance for Lavender Sweep residents.

“It is relevant that when permission was given in 1996 for a café/bar, at the relevant site’s location, one of the conditions prohibited the use of the garden being used for eating or drinking purposes. In the Council’s assessment of subsequent applications for variations of that permission, to include the use of the outside space, it was specifically stated by officers that the use of the garden would result in disturbance for neighbours, particularly opposite and to the south along Lavender Sweep.

Despite these reservations, Wandsworth Council gave three periods of temporary permission, between 1997 and 2003, to use the external space as ancillary seating (note: the ’01 and ’03 permissions limited the hours of use to between 9am and 7pm) and two other applications were refused (in 2000) because it was likely to cause undue harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers in the form of activity and disturbance at times when they could reasonably expect peace and quiet. The reason the permissions were temporary was to enable the Local Planning Authority to assess the impact of the external use on the area. “

One of the objection has been filled by Councillor Guy Senior, member of the cabinet, who wrote:

“This proposal is completely inappropriate in this location. It is surrounded by residential properties and will cause considerable noise and disturbance to local residents. The arrangements for deliveries and rubbish disposal are also not appropriate and will be noisy.”

We object to the proposal

We support the local objections to the proposal, based on the following arguments:

  • Public nuisance:

The majority of the outside space is located in a entire residential area (Lavender sweep and Eccles Road are both one-way streets) and is currently unused. The change will create a considerable nuisance in term of noise (until very late at night). In addition, some flats in Pavilion Chambers are directly above the building and a nar/nightclub at this location will undoubtedly have impact (we note that DJs are planned both on the ground and basement floors)

Customer nuisance for such premises is a fact and even when they intend to minimise it, they never manage to avoid it. Running engines, playing music, and talking late at night when facility is closing are usual complaints from residential areas close to such premises. Inevitably the residential roads will be used by customers joining the only facility open in Clapham Junction until 3.30am, a long time after most of the other bars are closed, especially in Northcote road.

  • Crime and disorder

It is likely that those quite street will be used as an impromptu urinal by inebriated patrons making their way home, as it is already the case on Severus Road (near the Clapham Grant) or Beauchamp Road (an objection said “we have customers from current pubs/bars coming up to this part of the Clapham junction urinating on corners, our walls, including entry into our homes“).

Lavender Sweep is already used as a rat run by some drivers at night, cutting short from Battersea Rise to join Lavender Hill. The residential streets already suffer from congestion due to the one way road layout and on-street parked cars. As it can be seen on similar areas with high profile bar, the problem will exacerbate as drinkers are dropped off or picked up, or simply go back to their parked cars at night.

  • Public safety

The necessary refuse collection and deliveries will be likely to obstruct the street and create hazard for passer-by, especially as it is located partly on a crossroad marked as shared space between vehicles and pedestrians (specific road treatment, part of the Exemplar scheme, which is in practice used very frequently as a pedestrian crossing).

In conclusion, both the planning and licensing application seem preposterous in regard to the location and specific surrounding of the area. Suggesting an opening up to 3.30am at night for a site with the majority of its building and outside areas opening to a residential should be at least considered as clumsy, or even provocative. We join the voice of local residents and local Councillor Senior and trust that the Council will reject those applications.

Filed under: Clapham Junction Will Big Fat Panda become a trendy nightclub open until 3.30 in the morning?

28 storey tower recommended for approval, in total breach of planning documents

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

28 storey tower recommended for approval, in total breach of planning documentsAnother very high tower has been recommended for approval in March (2014/6909), within the close vicinity of Clapham Junction. Just beside the Grade II listed Cremorne/Battersea railway bridge, Barratt London is going to build a 28-storey tower (12-14 Lombard Road, SW11).

As usual, Wandsworth planning documents have been ignored by the developers, and with reason, as the Council’s planning department itself chose to ignore them.

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 the site 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.

As we said in our previous article:

“Therefore if more than 9 storey is considered to be inappropriate according to the Council’s planning documents, why are the developers proposing a 28 storey tower? Probably for the same reason a 26 storey tower is proposed for Garratt lane (by the Council itself): because nobody care about the rules, and the Council in charge of enacting them is even leading by example.”

The Council received more than 120 objections from local residents (3 support – someone saying only he’s “fully in favour of this unique and stylish landmark development” – and 4 comments), including:

  • London Heliport (insufficient assessment of the impact, no cumulative effect assessed, do not want a repeat of the Vauxhall fatality)
  • Wandsworth Conservation Area Advisory Committee (out of scale with its surroundings, intrusive in views, harm the character of the Battersea Square Conservation area)
  • Battersea Society (Contrary to planning policy, Detrimental impact on local heritage bridge and river frontage, Lack of public transport capacity, Affordable Housing, Public Realm treatment)

As usual, the officer’s report brushed out all objections, saying:

15.2 The proposed building at 28 storeys is far in excess of the 8 storey maximum height that the SSAD for this site suggests is appropriate for this site. (so 28 is in excess of 8 so it’s appropriate? No joke?) […] There are considered to be material considerations that allow this proposed height to be considered favourably, and to accord with DMPD policy DMS4 (of the approved and 2nd proposed submission versions). These include the exceptional quality of the proposed architecture […].

15.3 […] In accordance with paragraph 134, there are considered to be significant public benefits from the proposal that outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting of the Battersea Square […]

We find here again the usual favourite catchwords used by Wandsworth Council to justify any breach of planning rules: “significant benefits that outweight the harm… “. See a similar example HERE.

The Council has changed its policy after the planning submission, in an attempt to justify the scheme and help the developers

In addition, Wandsworth Council recently added a proposal in revised documentation that a focal point in Lombard Road ‘be investigated’ (Core Strategy PL9, p.83, October 2014). However not only this is an obvious attempt to justify the scheme afterwards, but while the SSAD height guideline was not revised, the new planning documents are still under examination by a government inspector and final approval is not expected before the end of 2015.

As the Heliport threatened to challenge if approved, the Council decided to defer

During the Planning Application Committee on March 18th, consideration was given to the impact that the scheme would have on the operations of London Heliport. The Committee agreed that the application be deferred to secure more information and they asked that the applicant carry out an additional assessment on the potential impact of the proposal using data collected from wind tunnel modelling.

In the previous meeting, another tower of 14 storeys nearby (Gwynne Road) had been approved in February (Planning Application Committee approved by 8 votes to 1).

Filed under: Clapham Junction 28 storey tower recommended for approval, in total breach of planning documents

Benefits outweight harms to justify 26 storey tower

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

Benefits outweight harms to justify 26 storey towerFollowing our article on the redevelopment of Garatt Lane (South Thames College), including a 26 storey tower, Wandsworth Council has approved the proposal (no surprise, as this is the Council’s own application).

The scheme is described as the demolition of existing buildings and erection of four new buildings ranging in height from 4 to 26 storeys to provide 202 residential units.

You will note that this is in contradiction to the Council’s planning policies. The Site Specific Allocations Document (Feb. 2012) states (page 80):

Tall buildings: In accordance with the Stage 2 Urban Design Study – Tall Buildings, the site is sensitive to tall buildings […] Para 2.8 of the S2UDS refers to both the offices in Garratt Lane and Welbeck House as “less successful” and some reduction of existing storey heights will be sought, in part, on both sites. This is to ensure a better relationship to adjoining listed buildings and to enhance the appearance of the Wandsworth Town Conservation Area

As this is now the rule in the Council, those planning documents have been ignored and the officer’s report says:

“26.4 Block B is fully acknowledged to be a tall addition to the Town Centre but the harm that it would cause is considered to be less than substantial in terms of the tests set by the NPPF and outweighed by public benefits. The tall building elements of the development have assessed against policy DMH4 and on balance satisfy the criteria and therefore considered compliant with policies DMH4 and IS3.

26.6 There are a number of listed buildings located near the site; […] where harm may be caused, the benefits to the public are considered to outweigh those harms.

26.7 The site is located within a conservation area. […] on balance the positive aspects of the development are considered to outweigh other aspects of the scheme and overall the proposed is viewed favourably. “

Indeed, with the Council’s catch words “on balance…” and “where harm may be caused, the benefits to the public are considered to outweigh those harms” everything is now acceptable!

 

Filed under: Wandsworth Town Benefits outweight harms to justify 26 storey tower

CJTCP – meeting 15 January 2015: feedback

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

As usual when I attend the Clapham Junction Town Centre Partnership (business associations) meeting, I give a quick feedback on some specific points that were discussed.

Business report: The Council has currently appointed a team to overview the options towards self-sustainability. The current Town Centre partnership Board structure will remain at least for the next 2 years, until January 2017.

Lavender Hill: Cllr Guy Senior suggested funding the repaving of Lavender Hill from BAC to Lambeth (as TfL has already agreed to extend the Exemplar scheme from the Post Office to the BAC for £0.5 million) with the 15% share of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) that has to be spent on local projects.

The current 15% “pot” for Battersea locality (about 1 mile away from CJ station) is £245k. He suggested 2 options:

  1. same pavement as existing with cost ~£200k;
  2. upgrade to upper quality pavement (Exemplar scheme for example) and cost ~£700k. Options b means to wait for longer as the 15%CIL depends on the amount of new constructions granted in the area.

Cllr Senior said that CJ was luckier than Tooting, which has a “pot” of only £20k as there are no many new large constructions.

Cllr Senior said that the Council has no more money and rely only on CIL funding for improvements (made a comment saying that under the current £50 million cuts, they have absolutely no additional funding available; the council’s budget is only used for repairs). However he acknowledged that there is a possibility to use some of the 85% CIL money too.

Other options to spend locally the 15% share of the CIL are: Xmas lights; gardens; LED street lights

In other words, the message from the Council is: if you want improvement in your area, you have to accept larger developments!

 Northcote Road: 12th July 2015: Summer feast

Central Junction: Platform 17th extension has been completed on December 20th. Footfall in the shopping centre is 10.5 million.

Crime report: 70 crimes (-17%)

Planning: P.A. 2014/6976 for a motor-racing event in Battersea Park. BP is currently the only application made. The Park will not be available at all for the 2 days of the event (weekend). The event set-up is to begin on 15th June 2015. The dismantling and reinstatement is to be completed by 3rd July 2015. The option for the event is for the next 5 years. 30,000 people are expected at the event.

 

Filed under: Town Centre Business meeting CJTCP – meeting 15 January 2015: feedback

Be prepared for a cluster of “Falcon Towers” at Clapham Junction

Posted on by
Reply

Authors: Mike Snaith & Cyril Richert

Be prepared for a cluster of “Falcon Towers” at Clapham Junction

Clapham Junction near Falcon Road

On the evidence of latest exhibition at York Library on the Winstanley/York regeneration plans, it is obvious that not only have our previous concerns and comments been completely ignored by Wandsworth Council, but also those of the regeneration area’s residents, who specifically wanted “fewer towers”.

To be fair, the smallest of the three existing council block towers is to be demolished. But a panel in the exhibition clearly shows two NEW tower blocks just beyond the railway bridge at the top of Falcon Road and adjoining Grant Road, on the so-called Bramlands site.

Be prepared for a cluster of “Falcon Towers” at Clapham Junction

Cluster of towers near CJ railway bridge (the two blue-white Falcon’s Towers on this picture exist already)

On November 27 2013 the council’s team in charge of the project replied to our inquiry on the plans:

“The options currently being consulted on are at a masterplan options stage only. So the plans and drawings that are shown are concepts and indicative only of how development could be pursued. The options signify that the master planners consider that development to a higher density, suitable for a town centre location, could be possible at Bramlands. However, this does not at this stage set out the number of storeys that might be proposed as part of this.”

Previous planning guidelines have indicated that new building height should be kept at around five or six storeys – the hotel development opposite CJ station was cut from 16 storeys to eight. But there is no longer ambiguity about the height of the new proposed towers. A council official at the exhibition admitted that they would be about the same height as the remaining towers – around 26 storeys.

When it was pointed out that the Junction area was mostly a human-sized, largely Victorian five storeys or so, and that the local people had decisively rejected the plan for the Junction towers – “Oh, you mean the 42-storey ones” – the official said: “Well, the mayor of London has a different policy now.”
Apparently Network Rail plans to buy the Grant Road railway arches and develop them as chic restaurants, delis etc. The image on Page 4 of the latest Brightside appears to show this with what may possibly be the back of one of the proposed towers.

New towers at Clapham Junction to cater for developments at Nine Elms

There was a suggestion during the exhibition that the council has a specific policy to develop this area as a “hub” with a “buzz” to cater for increased traffic from the Nine Elms development and the forthcoming Battersea Power Station Tube station. An official said that the first four floors or so of the towers would be commercial and above that one tower might “possibly be a hotel”. There might also, apparently, be interest from a dance company looking for studios. The towers would have to be tall to be financially attractive.

The site is at present occupied by a bus terminal, a church, an old people’s home and a pub, the Peacock, currently being renovated. “I don’t really know why they’re doing that,” said an official. “We’d have to buy it and demolish it.” The council, it seems, already owns the old people’s home, so would have to build a new one (at what cost?) elsewhere.

So the Bramlands plan is nothing to do with rehousing the estate residents. Nor has it been asked for by them. Indeed it will involve compulsory purchase of the pub, and possibly the church, and rehoming the old folk. Plus finding other space for the buses.

It appears to be simply a cynical attempt by the council to piggy-back on the universally accepted necessity to regenerate the Winstanley and York Road estates. It is not (at least officially) developers proposing to build towers and having to go through a long planning procedure. It is the council, like a cat lying on its back so its tummy can be tickled, rolling over for developers. It would be unsurprising if (as was apparently the case with the 42-storey CJ monsters) the council has already been “talking to people” who are just waiting for it to green light the regeneration scheme before whacking in their plans for those tempting towers. And do you think the council will turn them down? Especially when they promise some few million in sweeteners to help repave Wandsworth or whatever.

The Council refuse to extend the publicity for his tower plans

It is likely that a lot of estate residents did not see the exhibition, which ran for only three days with hours that meant many people would have been away at work. And in spite of our earlier request, the council did not extend the publicity for the exhibition to a wider area round Clapham Junction south of the railway bridge. A longer run with better publicity in Clapham Junction station, on St John’s Road and in the libraries would have given those who live and/or work in an area they care about and who would not be able to avoid the proposed towers, the chance to see the proposals and express their views. The image used in Brightside cannily shows only a couple of floors of the new building. Thus the council considers the Bramlands area adjacent to the railway bridge not part of the Clapham Junction wider area for consultation purposes but very much, as its planning team said in 2013, a “town centre location” for “development to a higher density”.

On this basis, the Clapham Junction Action Group would like to be involved in the redevelopment discussions. Therefore we have requested a meeting with the project team to discuss the plans.

Be prepared for a cluster of “Falcon Towers” at Clapham Junction

Proposed cluster of towers near the railway bridge

 

Filed under: Winstanley&York Road Be prepared for a cluster of “Falcon Towers” at Clapham Junction

New furniture shop at former Granada

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

New furniture shop at former Granada

There is now a new furniture shop on the frontage of the former Granada building, in St John’s Hill.

We have been following the issue from last year, and we wrote twice to the Council seeking update on the situation, as at that time there was still nothing planned.

New furniture shop at former Granada

We have never received any response!

Filed under: Clapham Junction New furniture shop at former Granada

Consultation on local plan documents – new submission

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

Following the rejection by the government inspector of Wandsworth Council’s planning policy submission, a new series of documents were open to comments until Friday 28th November 2014.

The Clapham Junction Action Group has submitted a representation, mostly responding to the previous response to the 2013 consultation (our previous participation is HERE).

Our introductory letter says:

“I am writing to you regarding the consultation on the Local Plan, 2nd proposed submission version (CS, DMPD and SSAD) submitted by the Council.

You will find attached the comments made by the Clapham Junction Action Group regarding the series of documents, most of them being specific to the area of Clapham Junction.

As we commented in 2013, we consider that most of our comments are still valid.

As usual, we noticed (and regret) that most of the comments made by the residents, groups and societies have been rejected or ignored in your responses to the 2013 consultation on planning policy; it questions, once more, the purpose of the full process, other than ticking the right box at the right time.

We have little hope that any more consideration will be given regarding concerns of the local residents. And we believe that the same feeling is shared by all the other Societies in Wandsworth. In itself, not addressing that issue is showing the poor consideration given by Wandsworth council to the consultation process, which is only therefore fulfilling its statutory duties.

We also understand that this general opinion was reflected by the response addressed to the Wandsworth Society by Paul Martin, Chief Executive and Director of Administration, on the 17th of July 2014: “I had thought that the press statement that the Council released within days of our letter set out the Council’s position”. And surely he couldn’t ignore the fact that this statement was calling Societies and residents groups in Wandsworth NIMBYs who “choose to hurl false and groundless allegations around”.

Therefore, although you might consider that this representation is another response hurling false and groundless allegations, we wish to add our comments to the review that will be made by the government inspector.

Yours sincerely“

Our comments consider that neither the Core Strategy, the Development Management Policies Document and the Sites Specific Allocations Document are effective and justified. Therefore they are unsound.

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.

>>> You can download and read our submission HERE.

Filed under: Planning strategy Consultation on local plan documents – new submission