|Application Type:||Application for Full Permission|
This application has been referred to the PAC as the proposal involves providing five or more residential units and as the grant of permission would be dependent upon a planning obligation (under Sections 4 and 3 of "Delegations to the Head of Planning and Development”).
The actual amount of CIL can only be confirmed once all relevant details are approved and any relief claimed.
|Number of letters sent||120|
|Number of responses received||136|
|Number of objections||128|
|Number of comments||0|
|Number of letters of support||8|
Principle and cumulative impacts: The Council needs to adopt a sensible and logical strategy to developments in Wandsworth, with a masterplan for the area needed. At present each proposal is proposed to be a focal point for the area. The height exceeds the Councils own guidelines; just because tall buildings have been approved/built elsewhere does not mean past errors should be repeated;
Design and appearance: Concerns regarding the size/scale/height/building mass/bulk/design of the proposal (overdevelopment of the site); results in overbearing development; harmful to visual amenity/character of the area; fails to integrate in townscape; overdevelopment/high density/cramming; the height is too overwhelming for the listed and sensitive buildings; the tall building contributes little to the local community; height of tower means it will have far-reaching effects as will be seen from a greater distance; tall buildings lead to greater crime and violence; will quickly date and will result in repetition of the mistakes of 60s and 70s buildings.proposal is contrary to Council policies; proposal would harm the surrounding properties; buildings offer little architectural design, do not sit well with surrounding properties and will not be sustainable over the future decades; buildings unattractive; proposal seems a tribute to the brutal architecture of the post war era; the tall block is unsightly and degrades the area.
It takes no account of its context. The architectural design is out of place with the buildings along the main road, and impact negatively on the character of the area. Out of keeping and unsympathetic with other developments in the area. It ignores the industrial heritage of the area. Eye catching only because it is ugly, cumbersome and not in keeping with the aesthetic of the area. It will age quickly. Disruptive to the skyline. The excessive height is highlighted in the visuals within the Townscape and Visual Impact Report. The closer visuals do not show the full height of the building only its lower storeys as it is too tall. A much lower height would be appropriate. The height of the building will lead to wind funnelling and overshadow the landscaped areas proposed.
Impact on local residential amenity: Overshadowing/loss of sunlight/daylight; refuse collection/proxemity to residential properties/noise and disturbance; loss of sunlight/daylight and increased overlooking; loss of direct sunlight to surrounding properties; it is noted that smaller schemes are refused on grounds of light and the Council is urged to act with consistency; light pollution; increased noise from additional population; inaccuracies in day/sunlight studies. Harm to residential amenities. The scheme is not considerate to its neighbours. Existing properties should not lose light or privacy because of new properties. Needs of new residents should not be prioritised above those of existing residents. Loss of privacy from proposed windows and balconies. Oppressive view due to the proximity, and sense of enclosure. Significant overshadowing, loss of light, breaches BRE guidance for windows and amenity areas.
Socio-economic impacts: Impact/damage/insufficient capacity on public services, local and social infrastructure (School/Health/Utilities etc.); pollution; litter; GP's; increased demand for waste removal; extra pressure on water; impact on public services; inadequate provision of affordable housing, schools are already oversubscribed; GPs are full and additional residential units would add to this; how will schools and GP surgeries cope with the increased flux of people?
Transport and highways: Impact on the public transport network that is already running at over-capacity and parking. Overcrowding/insufficient public transport at present; insufficient parking provision/leading to increased on-street demand/parked vehicles; increased traffic will add to congestion; new residents should be inellegible to CPZ permit. Increased vehicle and pedestrian traffic due to the high density of the proposal. Insufficient parking proposed, particularly for visitors and for pick up/drop off for the crèche, and for the commercial uses. Surrounding streets are already overcrowded, sometimes impassable and dangerous. Bus routes are over-capacity.
Affordable housing: not enough affordable housing; difficult to believe the whole financial viability of the scheme depends on the provision of affordable housing; the borough has desperate need for affordable housing; already there is large amount of luxury housing in the borough; the borough already has a bad reputation for affordable housing; intermediate housing usually means shared ownership, which has been shown to have legal flaws and are still unaffordable to most people; affordable housing should be truly affordable to residents of the borough; hope a significant proportion of the units are affordable.
Other: Cumulative impact with other developments in the area; precedent; impact/loss of trees; does it conform with Localism Bill with its community rights/how the community infrastructure levy will be raised from residents benefit/development rushed through; masterplan required for area wide consideration of impact; CGI's misleading; impact on ecology/wildlife; collusion apparent between developers and council, should be more democratic process with residents. The development would add pressure to already creaking infrastructure (water, drainage, power, buses, trains, roads) and the small parks. Only for developer profit with no benefit to the local population. Designed to attract foreign investment and not the needs of local people.
Support:Proposal will gretly improve the location, well designed scheme, height is appropriate, will provide much needed housing; support the principle of regeneration but not to this scale; need for high density to achieve high housing stock is noted;.
Responses to the planning application consultation were received from the organisations listed below, with their comments summarised below.The Battersea Society:
While supportive of the development of this site the Society objects on the grounds that the plans have no basis in policy as expressed in the Local Plan, is overdevelopment which will have a negative effect on the area, and will put further strain on transport in the area.The Putney Society:
Comment has turned out to be a waste of time since neither developers nor planning officers seem to take note of what it says. Regarding this site, the proposal does not sit well with surroundings and will overload the surrounding infrastructure. Object to height, massing and quantum of development with is contrary to policies.The Wandsworth Society:
The application is inappropriate and should be refused and the scheme rethought.
Tall Buildings: the assessment for the tall building has not offered any 'credible justification' for the tall building. Arguments are made for the positive benefits the building has, but policy precludes a tall building on site. The tall building does not preserve the character and appearance of the area or appearance and setting of a listed building as it incontrovertibly harms the setting of the nearby buildings. No justification is provided for the scale of development on site.
It is astonishing that the Council promotes a scheme which is in conflict with its own local plan and site policy has been ignored. It is clear the Council finds its own policies inconvenient and is happy to ride roughshod over local plan provisions they adopted a few years ago.The Clapham Junction Action Group:
Does not want to waste time in commenting single application when officers always dismiss them and Council does not bother.Greater London Authority (GLA) (Stage 1 review):
The application does not yet comply with the London Plan but with the remedies set out in the report, it could address the deficiencies.Transport for London (TfL):
The Travel Plan and any measures or financial requirements should be secured, enforced, funded, and monitored as part of a section 106 agreement. TfL welcomes the submitted outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (CLP) and Travel Plan for the site.Environment Agency:
No objection subject to the addition of specified conditions recommended by EA to any permission.Historic England – Archaeology:
Appraisal of this application using the Greater London Historic Environment Record and information submitted with the application indicates that the development would not cause sufficient harm to justify refusal of planning permission provided that a condition is applied to require an investigation to be undertaken to advance understanding.English Heritage:
All matters relating to historic buildings or areas should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of our specialist conservation advice.
Paragraph 132 of the NPPF emphasises the great weight that should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset and its setting, when considering the impact of a proposed development. If the Council concurs that these proposals would result in some harm to the historic environment, then it must be confident that the necessary public benefits would be delivered to outweigh that harm.London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority:
A condition on the cladding chosen should be applied to prevent a Grenfeld tower effect.London Heliport:
The London Heliport has no objection as currently proposed under arrangements for safeguarding of the London Heliport in relation to the notified Obstacle Limitation Surfaces set out in the Safeguarding Map.Metropolitan Police Service:
In principle the design and layout are acceptable and there are no objections to the design as proposed. Design comments and amendments have been given to the applicant for consideration.Natural England:
No objection. However, no comment has been provided in regard to protected species with standing advice being available.National Grid:
No comment.Thames Water:
No objection, the proposal is considered acceptable. Comments regarding non-return valve, surface water drainage, petrol/oil interceptors, fat traps, and minimum water pressure can be used as informatives on any permission.
The proposal would result in the loss of existing mature trees, which is regrettable.Head of Housing Strategy and Development:
Given the independent affordable housing assessment, the Head of Housing Strategy and Development (HHS&D) is satisfied with the proposal and supports the affordable housing offer as representing the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing the scheme can support.The Head of Housing Strategy and Development expects the future landowner and developer of this site to work with the selected affordable housing provider to ensure that appropriate housing management arrangements are put in place and that service charges for the affordable units are kept down to a reasonable level.
To conclude, the Head of Housing Strategy and Development welcomes the regeneration of this area, which in addition to providing housing to a range of incomes will also provide much improved public realm and residential and compliment the other regeneration being undertaken to the area.Ecology (Enable):
The proposal is considered acceptable.Environmental Services: Noise:
Conditions are recommended on any permission regarding a scheme of mitigation against external noise for the proposed residential units, a construction management plan (to include a dust management plan), details of external plant and equipment and the ventilation system, a delivery and servicing plan, and details of any external spaces to be used in connection with any commercial use (including the times).Contamination:
Conditions are recommended for any permission granted.Air Quality:
The proposal is considered acceptable in regard to air quality subject to conditions.Lead Local Flood Authority:
The proposed drainage and SuDS strategies are considered acceptable.Waste Services:
Prior to the commencement of development further clarification is required in regard to the location or volume of waste and recycling.
BNP Paribas: The affordable housing offer represents the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing the scheme can support.Climate Integrated Solutions (CIS):
All units have been modelled SAPs and SBEMs. A summary table of the results has been provided. The report shows a change in emissions for the non-domestic areas. Based on the information currently available this cannot be confirmed.
Energy Efficiency Measures (Be Lean):
Details of the proposed specification have been included.
Energy Supply (Be Clean):
There are no existing or proposed district heat networks nearby. Details of how the design will be future proofed to allow a connection to district heating should a network become available has now been provided in some detail.
Renewable Energy (Be Green):
A feasibility study has been included in the appendix. The London Plan expects a reduction of 20% at this stage.
Measures incorporated at each stage of the cooling hierarchy have been discussed. The report states active cooling is not required for the residential areas. The non-domestic area does not appear to be mentioned. It is not clear if dynamic thermal modelling has been carried out. An overheating analysis report has been provided. This shows the risk of overheating is acceptable for 1 of the 3 TM49 design summer years. The applicants report states cooling is expected within the commercial use and therefore overheating analysis has not been carried out. The actual cooling demand has been reduced to below the notional cooling demand as required by the London Plan.
Carbon offset payment:
96.35 tonnes are required to be offset annually. This is 9635 tonnes over 100 years. Built calculations will be required to confirm the final amount.
A BREEAM New Construction 2014 pre-assessment has been provided. This is a fully-fitted assessment. The report shows a score which is over the 70% required to achieve BREEAM Excellent. Some additional credits have also been identified. The BREEAM Excellent mandatory credits appear to be achieved.
Domestic water use:
The applicant has provided a water use calculation which shows proposed flow rates and capacities and a total internal water use below 135L/person/day.
In the presentation of the proposals the top of the tower was not visible in selected images. The Panel were generally comfortable with the overall massing and height of the proposed development. Given the above, and depending on the full impact of the scheme being reviewed and the quality of the public realm being addressed, the panel felt comfortable with the height of the proposed tower in this location. To conclude, the Panel applaud the Council’s ambitions and urge the Council to ensure that the applicants can deliver these ambitions through a legal agreement.
The main considerations material to the assessment of this application have been summarised as: