Author Archives: Cyril Richert

4-8 Hafer Road plan is out of context for the area

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

On November 14th 2013, we wrote to the Council to submits comments on the proposed redevelopment of 4-8 Hafer Road. We have some sympathy for the current resident who said they wish to redevelop their home and to do so need to redevelop the entire building to pay for their plans with extra units to be sold.

The scheme proposes to replace a few 3 storey small residential blocks in the style of former council houses, with a modern 4 storey building.

4-8 Hafer Road plan is out of context for the area

The proposal is over-developed and completely out of context within the Victorian-style of the surrounding

We are not against the redevelopment of the current houses, and we acknowledge that the proposed building will not be much taller that the houses on one side.

However the total footprint of the construction will be more than 3 times as much as the current dwellings. As a consequence it will be very imposing and with a quite different style to the Victorian terrace houses that characterize the rest of the area. Isn’t it a characteristic of over-development?

We would like to see a reduction in size/footprint of the building, along with a more sympathetic treatment to match the other buildings in the rest of the street (the proposed design elements of the front balconies make it wildly anachronistic within the streetscape). As an example of similar development we can look at Mossbury Road where P.A. 2010/1620 was granted for 6 new units matching in a more sympathetic way the other terrace houses of the street.

In view of the recent amendments and additional visual documents submitted, we are now in a view that this is completely out of context within the Victorian-style of the surrounding. Therefore we join the many local residents to object to this plan.

We support the Battersea Society which strongly objected to the plan with the following arguments:

The proposal is contrary to DMS 1, sections a – d. in that the proposed re-development:

  • Would not integrate well with its surroundings
  • Would not contribute positively to local spatial character. In particular the loss of open space and the design of the building with obtrusive balconies at the front would be to the detriment of the streetscape and to the surrounding area
  • Would harm the amenity of nearby properties. There can be no justification for a new building within a congested area being granted eight parking spaces while providing no off-street parking. It appears there would be over-shadowing and loss of privacy
  • Is unsympathetic to the locality

We think that this modern building does not respect the character of the area in anyway, in addition to having already many characteristics of an over-development. It is odd that this application was not stopped at the consultation level, before to go to planning, and architects and owners encouraged refraining  from this complete new design out of touch with the vicinity.

If you want to comment on the application, this is here.

Filed under: Clapham Junction 4-8 Hafer Road plan is out of context for the area

ASDA: Clapham Junction 2020 retail study by the RSA

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

ASDA: Clapham Junction 2020 retail study by the RSA

Presentation of the RSA 2020 retail report

The RSA presented its report on the future of retail at the horizon of 2020. They argue that building a future retail model which coordinates corporate operations to maximise local social an economic impact will become a key competitive advantage in a decade, in which traditional physical stores are set to experience transition and disruption.

Building on six months of research with three Asda stores (Clapham Junction, Tilbury and Oldham), this Asda funded report sets out the business case and the social drivers of change.

It provides a roadmap for how a large retailer like Asda can evolve to co-produce a future shared value retail model: one that is locally adaptable and supported by corporate organisational strength.

They recommend how retailers can take action to develop a shared value retail model and how Asda can transition, building on the experience gained in their innovative and ambitious Community Life programme, to develop a community venturing function.

In their recommendations for the retail sector they say that the business should undertake community development activities and explore new shared value ventures locally. It sets out the principles for a local autonomy of retail stores and urge them to engage locally.

It could take several forms, such as using the store as a recruitment hub for volunteering, bringing leisure and entertainment activities into stores and car parks, and endowing community trusts with unused assets.

The event featured a panel debate including Nick Hurd MP, Minister for Civil Society; Paul Kelly, Asda External Affairs Director; Alana Renner, Deputy Communications Director at the Post Office; Laura Bunt, Head of Policy Research at Citizens Advice; and chaired by Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the RSA. This will be preceded by discussions with Asda employees who champion community engagement, and followed by a Q&A with the panel more generally.

Alana Renner said that the Post Office is currently exploring how to improve their branches to combine more social and commercial success (maybe there is something to do with Asda which is next door!). Paul Kelly said that the business is different from that of 2008 and that the society expectations have changed. Nick Hurd, MP gave 2 advices: 1- be ambitious; 2- be committed to it.

The future will show the shape of the business involvement. The audience raised interesting questions: While the State is withdrawing and the business is profit driven, where can we draw the line? And what happens if local community interest conflicts with local government plans/commercial interest and create tensions?

In any case, we look forward to opportunities to work with Asda Clapham Junction!

The RSA is a 250 year old charity, specialised in public services and organisation. They undertake influential and varied research projects and their work is supported by 27,000 Fellows, an international network of influencers and innovators from every field and background.

Asda Clapham Junction is the largest retail unit in the town centre. They employ 420 people and the supermarket is open 24 h/day from Monday to Saturday 11pm, Sunday 10am-5pm. The RSA worked through interviews of many community stakeholders and a workshop held in the PCS building mid-July 2013.

The RSA report 2020 Retail: Shopping for Shared Value is available for download HERE.

Filed under: Clapham Junction ASDA: Clapham Junction 2020 retail study by the RSA

Chinese property developer buys Ram Brewery

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

Chinese property developer buys Ram Brewery

A computer image of Ram Brewery site in Wandsworth with 36-storey tower and flats, as displayed by the Evening Standard

The news came at a shock for many, as yesterday it was announced that Greenland Group, the giant state-owned Chinese property developer has bought the Ram Brewery site, Britain’s oldest brewery (beer had been brewed at the site continuously since 1576 and the Young’s Brewery opened in 1831).Minerva (which was bought by Delancey Real Estate two years ago) was granted planning consent by Wandsworth Council just a few months ago, to build a 36 storey building, along with many 9-12 other buildings, at the heart of the conservation area, beside a number of listed buildings. The scheme includes 661 units (with only 66 of them – 10%, all in the same block 9 – being affordable, i.e. shared ownership, which will never get build before the decommissioning of the gas-holder beside). There is no social housing at all.

The Guardian wrote:

“Beer had been brewed at the site continuously since the 16th century, in 1831 becoming the home of brewers Young & Co, which maintained the pub that gave the brewery its name.

To the consternation of real ale lovers and against the wishes of its chairman, John Young, Young’s sold the brewery in 2006 under pressure from investors to cut costs and cash in on rising property values. Young, the great great grandson of Young’s founder, said at the time: “My head has ruled my heart.””

Greenland has projects in 80 cities throughout China, as well as investments in Jeju in South Korea, Pattaya in Thailand, New York and Los Angeles  in the US and in the Australian market, and it follows rival Chinese developer Wanda’s announcement to build a 60 storey skyscraper in Nine Elms, (mostly luxury flats with a small portion considered as “affordable”).

Zhang Yuliang, chairman of Shanghai based developers Greenland Group expects the development to be hugely attractive to Chinese investors. He said:

“There have been more individual investors who favour the UK market, thanks to the stable return on assets, high-quality assets and sound market liquidity.”

In a statement issued yesterday to Bloomberg, he said:

“The prospect for our overseas property business is great. Rich and middle-class Chinese will be the main buyers of our projects.”

The Evening Standard wrote:

“[Mr Yuliang’s] comments will increase concern that Londoners are being priced out of new developments by foreign buyers, although property companies insist sales to foreigners play a crucial role in making schemes financially viable. Greenland Group, best known for building China’s tallest skyscraper, also said it is investing another £600 million on a 40,000 sq ft site in Canary Wharf.”

The Telegraph issued a similar comment saying:

“Greenland’s investment into London follows a burgeoning trend of foreign investors buying up luxury residential property, as a second home, or as a buy to let business, as well as commercial real estate across the Capital. Overseas investors continue to see the UK as a safe haven from the volatility of the debt and equity markets.”

While most of the to-be-built-yet flats in Battersea Power Station (bought by Malaysian  investors) have already been sold through a Singaporean agent, it confirms the worries expressed during the Parliament debate about properties being bought by foreigners, last June.

However the trend is greatly encouraged and pushed by David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson to encourage bigger Chinese investment in Britain. Ravi Govindia, Leader of Wandsworth Council, said:

“This is more good news for Wandsworth Town and another vote of confidence in the council’s ambitious regeneration plans. The Ram Brewery now has an owner with the experience and deep pockets needed to unlock its enormous potential. […] It also delivers on the council’s top priority which is to redesign the Wandsworth Gyratory and remove through traffic from the high street.

We look forward to working with Greenland Group to see this important project through to completion.”

The future will tell who was right but politicians are currently playing a very dangerous game with foreign investors, while everyday shows that they do not address the need of local people for affordable homes.

Filed under: Ram Brewery Chinese property developer buys Ram Brewery

Wandsworth protected views: response from the Council

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

Following our comments on Wandsworth Council’s consultation on local”protected” views we have received a response from the officer in charge of the policy document. The draft revised Local Views Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) aims at defining the different types of view that have some local significance and deserve protection within the borough.

Wandsworth protected views: response from the CouncilIn answering our different comments, the officer made the following response highlighted in green. We have added our own comment in red in this article.

You refer to a meeting of the Planning Forum in April 2013 where it was reported that there would be a shorter list of views. The reference to 7 is a drafting error and should be 6. I fully recognise that the change is substantial from the previous draft. This is a result of comments from the GLA, which suggested a more focussed document. In the introduction we state that there are many important views within conservation areas that were identified previously and these will now be set out within the Borough’s Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Strategies.

Although we dispute the necessity of such work with only 6 views, more than half of them subject to changes due to already granted outline planning schemes or schemes under discussion, we also think necessary to see the documentation sent by the GLA which has caused the planners to virtually eliminate all the local views.

I understand your concern that the content of views 3-6 will change as a result of development in Nine Elms. We recognise this in the document but feel it is even more important that these views are there in the SPD to ensure that developers take full cognisance of them if they propose any tall buildings, which impact on Battersea Power Station.

Saying that it ensures that “developers take full cognisance of them if they propose any tall buildings” may imply that they do not pay such attention to the Borough’s Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Strategies, and therefore contradict/undermind the consideration given to the other “important views” as stated in the previous paragraph.

In paragraph 28, we were concern that the draft document said “Where development is proposed in the silhouette of a heritage asset this may cause undue harm“, and not “will”. The officer’s response is:

I note you would prefer to substitute the word ‘will’ for ‘may’ in the context of the impact of a proposal in the silhouette of a heritage asset. We feel that the use of ‘may’ is more appropriate because the visual impact of any particular proposal will depend on the nature of any development. Some proposed developments in the silhouette may not be visible so this allows a judgement to be made in each case.

However saying that it is justified because “some proposed developments in the silhouette may not be visible” is in contradiction with the paragraph saying that it concerns “where development is proposed in the silhouette of a heritage asset“. It seems bizarre to apply a guideline to a building that has no impact as not visible…

Photography and wide angle lens

In paragraph 2.49 of the adopted DMPD reference is made to the fact that wide angle lenses can distort perspective. This is true hence the need for the cautious approach set out in Appendix 1, which is extracted from the Mayor’s guidance on Strategic Views set out in the London View Management Framework (LVMF).

The LVMF states that ‘where a proposal needs to be shown in a broad context choices must be made between using wide angle photography, which may give rise to less natural perspective at the edges of the images or by combining additional images taken from the same position. Where this latter technique has been used AVRs should include additional annotation to indicate how images have been combined’.

The whole purpose of AVRs is to show a proposed development as accurately as possible.

We have already shown that the way the DMPD was worded, using the word “can”, is too vague (as we demonstrated that in all cases it will distort, but for representation of plane surfaces). That was also admitted by a planning officer who considered the policy a bit clumsy.

Therefore, instead of making sure that developers will provide images as the naked eye will see, it will continue to allow AVR using wide angle lenses, not specifically described as such (also LVMF says so already Wandsworth Council has never enforced it), to illustrate proposals.

It is a misunderstanding of AVR to write that their purpose is to show a development as accurately as possible. As explained by experts (Miller Hare) in their methodology, the goal is to provide additional information such as context, number of buildings, etc.

The Local Views SPD will be reported back to the Council early next year along with the results of the public consultation.

Filed under: Planning strategy Wandsworth protected views: response from the Council

No active frontage for former Granada building, despite planning

Posted on by
Reply

Author: N. Knight

No active frontage for former Granada building, despite planning

Planning application for the former Granada cinema redevelopment  was granted with plans to implement an active frontage with shops along St John’s Hill Road. However, after years of site construction panels, we are left with a long grey painted wooden hoarding, and no active marketing to open any retail unit soon at that place.We have wrote to the Council for their acknowledgement that the former Granada Cinema development has not been built as consented, and for their support that Wandsworth Planning Department will take appropriate measures to ensure the owners of the property do comply with their duties in regard to provision of the retail units fronting St John’s Hill.

Planning & listed building consent were approved on 7th September 2006 (ref: 2005/4544) for the new residential units; the conversion of the auditorium for the use of a church; and to use ancillary space for retail, office & restaurant space.

The image below is the southern elevation facing St John’s Hill, which was received by Wandsworth on 21st June 2010 as part of some general amendments, and clearly shows the open windows on the ground floor for the retail units still remaining.

No active frontage for former Granada building, despite planning

Southern elevation facing St John’s Hill

The planning committee decreed on the 16th February 2006 to grant listed building consent subject to the following conditions, with the 13th condition relating to the retail units, and copied below for your information:

13. Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved drawings details of the new shopfronts fronting St John’s Hill shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority prior to commencement of the development hereby approved.

The frontage facing St John’s Hill was described by the projects architect as providing an important addition and enhanced the public realm for the entire development. They also stated that the retail units would provide an active frontage, also considered to be of importance, and no doubt the addition of these units would have swayed the committee.

Alterations to the interior auditorium for the church were approved on 28th July 2011, and included within the application was a ground floor drawing, depicting the retail units fronting St John’s Hill as being protected. On the drawing it states “Future retail unit – subject to separate planning application”. As per the above planning condition, details of the shop fronts must have been approved; otherwise the development could not have commenced. A snippet of this plan is shown below:

No active frontage for former Granada building, despite planning

Ground floor drawing, depicting the retail units fronting St John’s Hill as being protected

Unfortunately these retail units have not been installed as per the planning consent. At no time has the developer actively marketed the units, which would only ever be feasible once the units were completed. The cost of fitting out the units would have been accounted for within the development appraisal (with little or no value applied), and therefore the developer is profiting from non-compliance of these units, and Wandsworth is missing out on business rates, employment and an addition to the local environment.

For too long the St John’s Hill frontage has been a painted wooden hoarding, which detracts from the quality of Clapham Junction town centre, and is wholly unacceptable to this high quality neighbourhood. I would be astounded if the hoarding meets Wandsworth’s stringent design guides, and if there is nothing the Council can do, then it sets a dangerous precedent for other developments.

Wandsworth Council has a duty to ensure that such a visible and prominent development is completed as per the consent, and forces the owners to take action to comply with their own design.

We look forward to hearing from them, and understanding what actions can and will be taken to rectify the situation (a letter on that matter was sent to Wandsworth Council Planning department on Tuesday 17th Dec.).

Filed under: Clapham Junction No active frontage for former Granada building, despite planning

Option 1 would be a good compromise, says Wandsworth Society

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Shirley Passmore, Wandsworth Society

Option 1 would be a good compromise, says Wandsworth Society

Current York Road estate

We note with interest the various proposals to upgrade the Winstanley and York Road estates and are pleased to see that the council is consulting the local people about what they would like to happen.

The council has the opportunity to improve the environment and social mix of the area but it needs to be very conscious of the mistakes of the past and to avoid repeating them.

Sixty odd years ago the whole area was a network of little streets, housing thousands of people in admittedly sub-standard small properties. Today the houses would probably be refurbished and brought up to date, but the old Battersea Council merely saw slums. It broke up communities, took away something most families want…a house with its own private space (at least, a little back yard), and streets that led somewhere, not just into a concrete warren of dead ends. It also (inevitably) filled the majority of the new flats with same-age young families creating an unbalanced society from the start.

An aerial view of the area shows that at present there is a surprising amount of green space. We think it essential that this should not be reduced. It can also be used to link groups of properties.

We like the emphasis on improved roadway links. We think also that developing the York Road frontage to some degree would be beneficial.

Development along Grant Road

We are not convinced that the ‘station piazza’ by Falcon Bridge will do much to enhance, particularly as it can only be achieved by the demolition of the Bramlands properties. These are not particularly attractive but are well liked by those who live there. It seems a needless community disruption. Improvements to the existing street scene could be made with plantings, interesting pavings etc. and removal of car-parking on the forecourts of the corner properties. The Church of the Nazarene is also quite an interesting building. Why destroy something that at present adds some character to Grant Road?

Option 1 would be a good compromise, says Wandsworth Society

It is clear that the residents of the estates do not want the proposed (or any more) tower blocks and we strongly support them in this. Towers are largely an architectural fashion. They dominate, cast shadow, create uncomfortable windy zones, and steal our sky. In this area they go against the recommended policies of the SSAD where anything over 5 storeys is considered tall and the area is marked as ‘sensitive to’ tall buildings.

We think the suggested addition (all options) of some small houses along the Grant Road frontage of the Winstanley Estate is an acceptable way of increasing the number of homes.

York Gardens and York Estate

If the York Road frontage is built upon it will mean the loss of a sizable area of the park and this will need to be replaced. The local people do not want to lose any area of open space. The proposal for the park in Option 1 (‘moderate change’) is an interesting solution to this.

Most people seem to favour the demolition of the three soul-destroying slab blocks of the York Estate (Pennythorn, Holcroft, and Scholey) and we agree that this would do much to improve the whole appearance and cohesion of the area because they could be replaced with lower rise, larger-sized, family homes.

Social implications

The social mix of the area is already different from a few years ago because quite a number of flats are now privately owned and either owner-occupied or privately rented. It will be important to keep as many as possible of the remaining estate flats as social (cheap rent) housing as this is the great need in Battersea/Wandsworth.

In considering the compensation paid to owner-occupiers, the council needs to do much more than pay the current value of the flat. It needs to realise that these families will be forced to live away from the area as property prices in the borough will preclude them from buying locally.

The Proposed Options

It seems that the status quo, albeit with refurbished properties, is not generally approved.

The original proposal (‘change’) of demolishing the York Road Estate with its out-dated slab blocks, with the extra houses along Grant Road would be the least disruptive of the three options. However it precludes development along York Road, presumably one of the money-making projects for financing the scheme.

Option 1 (‘moderate change’) would be a good compromise, but we think it unnecessary to remove as many of the Winstanley flats as proposed and we do not think Bramlands or the Church of the Nazarene should be demolished.

Option 1 would be a good compromise, says Wandsworth Society

Winstanley/York Road Redevelopment – Option 1

We consider Option 3 to be far too destructive for the communities and it would cause the biggest logistics problem over re-housing existing tenants. Flexibility within Options 1 and 2 is probably the best way forward.

Whichever scheme finally emerges, the refurbishment of these estates also gives the opportunity to impose an innovative integrated water management system across a wide area. This entails considerable reduction in non-permeable surfaces, more tree planting in bio-retention blocks, below-surface water tanks to store water for slow release, and green roofs etc. All designed to ‘slow the flow’ of surface water into the drains and hence into the sewage system, the cause of much pollution of the River Thames.

Filed under: Winstanley Option 1 would be a good compromise, says Wandsworth Society

Latest news on Clapham Junction train links projects

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

More news on the proposals outlined in the Government’s 2013 National Infrastructure Plan, as highlighted by Wandsworth Council press release.

Latest news on Clapham Junction train links projects

Heathrow Rail Link

The 2013 National Infrastructure Plan (NIP) includes a commitment to investigate options for improving rail access to the airport from the south. A £1m study will now take place.

Brighton Main Line

The NIP commits the Government to investigating upgrades to the Brighton Main Line which connects Gatwick to Clapham Junction and London Victoria. Plans include a £50m redevelopment of Gatwick Station, a Network Rail study into capacity upgrades and ‘smart ticketing’.

Northern Line extension

NIP confirms the Government will back the Northern Line extension to Battersea with a £1bn borrowing guarantee. This follows the Greater London Authority, Transport for London and the Battersea Power Station developer signing a vital commercial agreement which clears the way for the Government guarantee to go through.

Crossrail 2

In addition, Clapham Junction is also on the proposed Crossrail 2 route which would connect the station to the London Underground network. Don’t get excited just now though, it’s only planned for 2025-2030 at the soonest Latest news on Clapham Junction train links projects

Filed under: The station Latest news on Clapham Junction train links projects

CJTCP – meeting 5 December 2013: 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. This time the Chair invited us to Battersea Power Station. As it was our last meeting festive refreshments were provided (and enjoyed!).

CJTCP – meeting 5 December 2013: feedback

For the first time (maybe the last one too as it is a bit time consuming), I provided a live-tweet of the meeting with #cjtcpb (click on the hash tag to see it). I remind everyone on Twitter that they can follow us on @c_j_a_g.

The Junction: There was only 20 lights to put for the heart of Clapham Junction, so a difficult choice to make. But at least there will be something this year again.

Northcote Road: The event organised to turn the Xmas lights on, on Thursday 28th, was a big success. An enormous success. In fact it was so successful that it will be necessary to arrange barriers next year in order to manage the crowd.

St John’s Hill: No lights and Xmas trees this year. The business association decided to save the money and organise a bigger event next year.

Battersea High Street: We managed to plant 25 Xmas trees with lights along the street off Battersea Park Road.

Lavender Hill: There is a major on-going complaint from the business of Lavender Hill which feel completely neglected by the Council and ignored by the local councillors (Shaftesbury ward – all of them members of the Council’s cabinet!). They plan to send a letter to the leader of Wandsworth Council about “Lavender Hill Rejuvenation“. Their main concerns are:

  • PARKING: need uniform parking restriction, extra bays, banning of vehicles from parking on pavement, directive to mini-cab firms.
  • ROAD TRAVEL: Removal of the “No Right Turn” restriction from Clapham Common to Lavender Hill (causing 20% drop in trade!)
  • SIGNAGE: removal of surplus and un-necessary signage
  • EMPTY SHOPS: encourage business along the street
  • CRIME: greater police presence
  • STREET CLEANLINESS: enforce directive for refuse sacks.
  • COMMUNITY events.

The Clapham Junction Town Centre Board has been asked to endorse the letter (decision at the next meeting).

The Battersea Society also commented on the consequence of the right turn and road amendment at Lavender Hill-Falcon Lane Junction (Asda): as a consequence it created a sort of rat-run with many car speeding fron Lavender Sweep to Falcon Lane and a large increase of difficult traffic at that crossing.

The Police wants to promote a scheme where people arrested (not convicted!) for shop-lifting and criminal offence will be automatically banned from shops (their photo will be displayed on a website and shops will be able to consult who is on the list to ban them from entering the shop). There was a long discussion as whether this is “ethic”, will not lead to mistakes (sanction is applied before sentencing) and abuse. Apparently questions such as the possibility of appeal against the ban, and whether that appeal will defer the ban are not very clear (or at least I did not understand clearly).

Battersea Power Station: amongst the daily news, inspection of the chimneys is underway and they have decided not to use Palm oil for their energy

Planning: The most noticeable are dealt here in articles:

Next meeting will be in February 2014.

Filed under: CJTCP CJTCP – meeting 5 December 2013: feedback

Platform 17 will be extended and barrier entrance enlarged

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Cyril Richert

Platform 17 will be extended and barrier entrance enlarged

View of Platform 17 from Station Approach

Network Rail has submitted its plan for platform extension and associated development to Platform 17 of Clapham Junction Station (including enlarging the barrier entrance to the under-path)  as part of the West London Line platform extension programme (P.A. 2013/5208).

Platform 17 will be straighten and extended to accommodate longer trains. Network Rail will re-align the platform by building a “balcony-type” platform over the pavement on the station approach, with an emergency staircase at the end.

At the same time, they will use the opportunity to move the Platform 1 staircase to free space in the under-path and enlarge the ticket barriers. Instead of the current 7 ticket barriers, we will have 11. With more than 50% increase it will make a big difference, especially at rush hours.

Platform 17 will be extended and barrier entrance enlarged

View from internal ticket gate, shopping centre entrance

Platform 17 will be extended and barrier entrance enlarged

View from internal ticket gate of new staircase leading to Platform 17

Platform 17 will be extended and barrier entrance enlarged

View of Platform 17 from Station Approach

You might remember the arguments of the developers who wanted to build 42 storey skyscrapers at the station in 2008-09: “This is once in a life time opportunity, if the plans are not supported we will face years of continued dreadful conditions at the station“; the proposed Clapham Junction redevelopment was the only possibility to provide the land required to straighten and lengthen platforms 17. Once again they are proven wrong, completely and utterly wrong.

As we wrote back in October 2009:

“The overwhelming complaint relates to the station itself and the intolerable levels of overcrowding and unsafe conditions, particularly on platforms 15 – 17. There is also some level of objection, which I personally strongly share, to the traffic situation around the crossroads by the station entrance.

The former is most certainly Network rail’s responsibility to deal with and the Council should be pushing for Network Rail to stop avoiding its responsibilities here. […] In addition, Network Rail must address the platform straightening issue on platforms 15-17 to provide a safer method of training and de-training passengers.”

Here we are, with style, Network Rail is providing a solution to both platform 17 issues, and the overcrowding experience at St John’s Hill ticket barrier. It should be applauded!

For the past 4 years, Clapham Junction Station has been massively improved, and without the help of the failed “once in a life time opportunity”-Delancey-Metro Shopping Fund-42 storey towers plan:

  • Lifts (access-for-all scheme) providing step-free access to every platform (2008-2010)
  • New Brighton Yard entrance (2011)
  • New canopies (2009-2013)
  • New entrance for Grant Road with lift and stairs to new Overground service (2012)
  • Straightening and lengthening of platform 17 (2014)
  • Enlarging ticket barriers and access on St John’s Hill side (2014)

Filed under: The station Platform 17 will be extended and barrier entrance enlarged

Community ‘crowdfunding appeal’ by residents to save Putney Common

Posted on by
Reply

Author: Nick Evans

Community ‘crowdfunding appeal’ by residents to save Putney Common

A view of Putney Common with the hospital in the background.
September 2013.

Late November 2013, the Friends of Putney Common (FofPC) community group has launched an online community ‘crowdfunding appeal’ to protect Putney Common from Wandsworth Council’s grasping attempt to build private roads on common land. FofPC’s fundraising will ensure that they are represented by leading silk Robert McCracken QC, in their ongoing High Court and Court of Appeal actions.

Nick Evans, spokesman for FofPC said

“The appeal is to convert residents’ support into a substantial fund to save part of Putney Common from being lost. We believe there is every chance of reversing the recent decision by Mr Justice Wyn Williams in the High Court and the argument will now proceed to the Court of Appeal. The Commons Conservators are the Trustees of the Common and should have upheld the 1871 Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act. They have utterly failed to protect our Common from Wandsworth Council’s unnecessary, unwelcome and ill-founded land grab of common.

Wandsworth Council has been given wide powers by the Commons Conservators to encroach on common land, to build a private tarmacked road, complete with remote barriers, bollards and street lighting. The Conservators should have defended the Common; instead of doing so they decided to sell out for £350,000. They signed agreements in secret, with no consultation with their stakeholders. Part of the common is being lost and for a derisory sum.

The financial support of the community will enable us to do our utmost to protect Putney Common, something the Commons Conservators have failed to do. If we do not continue to fight through the courts, it will result in Putney Lower Common becoming completely urbanised by Wandsworth Council, which will be a disaster. The common land near the old Putney Hospital will be lost, literally forever.”

Steps have been taken by FofPC’s solicitors Richard Buxton Environmental and Planning Law to begin the Court of Appeal process. Until now FofPC have funded their own expenses, aided by unsolicited donations. By opening up the funding through the community crowdfunding appeal it allows all local residents, as well as others who care about protecting their commons, to make a financial contribution.

Community crowdfunding is an innovative form of funding, targeting residents to give to local causes they support. The FofPC target of £15,000 must be reached within a 30 day period of the appeal being launched and only if the target is achieved is the money released. The funding will be held by Richard Buxton, as solicitors to the FofPC.

The FofPC appeal is one of the first community projects to be launched by world’s leading charity website JustGiving.com.

The appeal link is: http://www.justgiving.com/local/project/friendsofputneycommon

Wandsworth Council propose to build luxury flats and a new 420 pupil primary school on a site that is fundamentally too small, requiring encroachment on common land. The derelict Putney Hospital owned by Wandsworth Council is less than 0.5 hectare. The additional 0.8 hectare of the 1.3 hectare site is exclusively common, owned by the Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators. The entire access road is to be built on common land.

Some 1,300 Putney residents objected to the plans during the planning process, but were regrettably completely ignored by Wandsworth Council’s planning committee, the public consultation counting for nothing.

Council Leader Ravi Govindia’s statement that the development would only proceed if supported by Thamesfield residents is now exposed as the hollow promise it has always been.

NOTES:

  1. Friends of Putney Common (www.friendsofputneycommon.org) is a local community group formed by Putney residents to protect Putney Common and the site of Putney Hospital from inappropriate development.
  2. The Wimbledon and Putney Commons Act 1871 sets out the role of the Conservators and the way the Commons should be protected from unlawful encroachment.
  3. A planning application was made by Wandsworth Borough Council in February 2012 to build a 2FE Primary Academy School with a restricted roof-top playground and 24 luxury flats on the site of Putney Hospital, with access roads on the Common. The hospital had been closed since 1998. The Council bought the site from the Wandsworth Primary Care Trust for £4.4m. The first application by the Council was declared invalid in May 2012. A further application was submitted in July 2012, for which the WBC Planning Application Committee granted conditional permission in October 2012, despite receiving over 800 objections. This permission was quashed in the High Court following a legal challenge by FofPC, as it lacked an Environmental Impact Assessment and was unlawful.
  4. A new ‘Screening Opinion’ was published by the Council’s Planning Department on the 16 September, stating that an EIA is not necessary. Following a 21 day new consultation period the Wandsworth Council Planning Applications Committee granted planning permission (P.A. 2012/0758) with conditions on the 7 November 2013. At that time some 1,287 resident objections were registered, which were ignored. There were 10 in support.
  5. FofPC has challenged the need for a new school at the Putney Hospital site following analysis of the background data to school projections. FofPC have been criticised by Wandsworth as being “anti-family” and “anti-school”.

UPDATE 1st Dec 2013: FofPC appeal passes £11,000. Open Spaces Society offers support

The ‘crowd funding’ appeal launched by FofPC has just broken the £11,000 mark. The Open Spaces Society (Britain’s leading pressure group for common land) who were involved in the creation of Putney Common back in the 1870′s has offered unequivocal support and donated £350. See their press release HERE.

Filed under: Putney Community ‘crowdfunding appeal’ by residents to save Putney Common