Author: Cyril Richert

A planning forum meeting was organised by the Council on Monday 3rd November 2014, 17 months after the last one. Cllr Sarah McDermott, new chair of the Planning Application Committee (PAC) decided to resurrect this meeting, similar to the wish of her predecessor, Cllr Cuff, who eventually abandoned it in July 2013.

 1- Scheme of Delegation

The Council has revised its planning application rules and decided that from this month any application with less than 3 comments (from different households/addresses) will no longer be presented before the Planning Application Committee. Proposals recommended for refusal will only come before the committee if they pass some threshold (10 units for residential).

Residents who want a specific proposal to be discussed will have to ask their ward Councillor, who will then ask the Chair of the PAC. They could refuse, although we were told it was unlikely (sic!).

So not only Wandsworth Council is the only Council in London refusing any delegation/representation at the Planning Application Committee, but now they have also decided to restrain even more the possibilities of objections.

2- Proposed changes in Planning Legislation – Permitted Development

The government is planning a number of changes in the planning legislation in order to make possibilities for change of use and conversions from business to residential even easier.

The new Permitted Development rights were introduced by the government in May 2013. Key changes included the permitted change of use from office (B1 use class) to residential (C3 use Class). As it was meant to expire on 30th May 2016 the government is also planning to make the change permanent.

Wandsworth Council responded to this consultation with a 38 page document, listing a series of concerns. Although few schemes have been implemented under the new rule, Council’s figures show that currently it could represent a loss in offices of 45,000 sqm (number of residential units in pre-approval: >600). More alarming, they have noticed that it often concerns buildings currently occupied as offices (and not empty offices only).

Following the publication of the changes to permitted development rights the Council made a few bids to get exemptions without success, even for Putney. Nine Elms was granted exemption following a bid from the GLA.

The Council could have chosen to restrict permitted changes of use from office to residential by making an Article 4 direction as several other Boroughs did (this could apply to a specific area, e.g. Putney Town Centre or the whole Borough). Although the Council acknowledged (Strategic Planning and Transportation Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 24th June 2013) that in June 2013 some outer London boroughs were looking at making such directions, they decided to abstain in fear of being subject to possible claims for compensation. We saw later that Islington challenged the Secretary of States and got an exemption for a large part of the borough, Croydon argued of its origin back in the 50s as an office location in its centre, Brighton confirmed an exemption affecting its centre, etc.

The officer in charge argued that as the rule is likely to change in the coming months, there will be a need for the Councils which got an Article 4 Direction, to ask for a new one.

In other words, as Wandsworth Council did nothing, they won’t need to re-apply for something. The loss of offices (with a potential of getting some money through new developments) seemed more appealing than the risk of being subject to compensation if protecting the areas.

3- Local Plan Consultation

Following the rejection of the local plan submission by the government inspector (see HERE), a new consultation is taking place and representations need to be submitted  before the 28th November 2014.

4 – Further Supplementary Planning Documents

The Council is also in the process of reviewing the Lombard Road riverside area. The current planning documents say (Site Specific Allocation Document p174):

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.

The Council is proposing now to designate the area as a focal point.

Of course it is just a coincidence that several developments are proposed for this area, with one tower of 28 storeys (and 14 storeys for Gwynne Road, a few yards behind), in complete contradiction with the planning policies. Any suggestion that the Council might actually try to fit the developers’ needs with a retrospective change was denied (it’s a “framework” apparently).

Questions

A member of the forum told us that according to their own survey, trying to identify who was actually occupying the new Riverside developments, they found 1/3 main residence, 1/3 “pied a terre” and 1/3 used only as investment shells. The Council said they have not done such survey on the riverside developments and their own figures don’t show such empty occupancy rate.

Regarding a question on the widening gap between the planning policies and  the current granted applications, the Council responded that “the Planning Application Committee has to consider the context and balance between good and harm“.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Is Wandsworth a new free land for developers wishing to erect high luxury towers ? Was there a pledge from the Conservatives at the last local election to transform Wandsworth landscape? Or is it the case that developers come in number for higher schemes because they know that the Council will look at their proposals with sympathy (and maybe even encourage them)? And why developers ignore Wandsworth planning documents when submitting applications to the Council?

Within the last 12 months we’ve seen several major developments, all including very high towers, proposed for Wandsworth, within 1.5 mile of Clapham Junction.

• 26 storey tower at Garratt Lane – Planning application (Council’s proposal)
• 25+ storey towers at Falcon Bridge – Pre-consultation (Council’s proposal)
• 28 storey tower at Lambard Road – Pre-consultation

A common characteristic to all those schemes is that they contradict the Local Plan, Wandsworth own planning documents. However in all cases it is obvious that pre-discussions with the Council did not discourage developers in anyway to pursue their plans.

Part of Wandsworth Local Plan is the Site Specific Allocation Document (SSAD) produce by the Council’s planning department to give guidelines to what is possible and what they would consider inappropriate. The indications given in the SSAD and the schemes proposed by the developers couldn’t be more apart:

South Thames College/Welbeck House/17-27 Garratt Lane, SW18 (SSAD 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

>>> The Council is proposing a 26 storey tower (while existing building are 6-9 storeys)

Bramlands: Grant Road/Falcon Road Junction

On the picture produced in the draft Wandsworth Stage 2 Urban Design Study (S2UDS) – Tall Buildings (December 2009), one can see that the site at the corner of Grant Road/Falcon Road is considered, by Wandsworth planners, as suitable for a maximum of 6-storey building. The draft says (page 22):

2.43 The site of 140-150 Falcon Road and the area fronting on to Grant Road immediately to the north of the station suffers from a poor layout and design. In common with the rest of the town centre south of the railway this part of Falcon Road contains buildings of generally of three to four storeys. Here, applications for development of 5 storeys and above will be subject to the criteria of the tall buildings policy. Applications for buildings of more than 6 storeys will generally be unacceptable, and will only be considered in exceptional circumstances.

>>> The Council’s project team working on the area has suggested in all its pre-consultation exhibitions and documents that several towers up to 25 storey could be erected at the location.

12-14 Lombard Road, SW11 (SSAD page 174)

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.

>>> Private developers are running public pre-consultation with a proposal to build a 28 storey tower at the location.

Last April, The Putney Society, Wandsworth Society, the Clapham Junction Action Group and Friends of Putney Common community group published a dossier to express their concerns at the way Wandsworth Council has dealt with a number of important planning applications, in the context of published planning policy documents and guidelines.

Is it surprising that in view of the previous decisions, and while the leader of the Council declared a few month ago that planning policies are only guidelines, developers feel all welcome to submit their schemes without specific attention to the local planning documents?

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

A new research on Wandsworth planning consultation concluded that “citizens are not discouraged to further participate by the way the consultation tools works, but rather by the council’s attitude towards their views“.

And it says that Wandsworth is “either not aware of the problems or is not interested in improving the service delivered”. The study found also that Wandsworth Borough Council (WBC)  did not request any feedback from its citizens, “which means that a communication channel does not exist betweens the Council and its residents“.

Last month, Adelina Grigoraş published a study called “Technology as a Tool for Public Participation in the Planning Process: Lessons Learnt From the London Borough of Wandsworth” (download HERE) as part of her degree at the University College London, Faculty of the Built Environment.

The purpose of this research was to examines the way public consultations are undertaken in the context of the current modern society, where information communication technology (ICT) is used in all activity fields,  to assess the extent to which this was achieved in the London Borough of Wandsworth and analysing people’s level of trust in the planning system overall.

The research explains that the most important ingredient for successful consultations is the trust of citizens in the planning system, which can be achieved by demonstrating people that their views matter. The conclusion of the study shows clearly that WBC is failing to achieve that.

Successful consultation is not exposing a fait-accompli

Consulting the community gives two direct advantages, according to the document. It saves money by avoiding building the wrong building at the wrong place, and a widely accepted proposition is unlikely to be challenged. Another argument cited in favour of promoting public participation is valuing local knowledge, much more so than an individual planner could develop.

In a case for early consultation, it says that citizens must be asked to participate in decision-making from early stages, when their insights can make a significant change, not just asking them whether they agree or disagree with certain proposals.

The study found that WBC current strategy is called ‘Decide and Defend’ (DAD). This consists of announcing the location for a development and then building arguments in order to defend the decision (cf Rydin, 2011). Therefore, the public is not left with any option other than oppose the development or agree with it. It says:

“If developers’ strategy would encourage people to engage more in planning issues from the early stages of a planning application instead of using the DAD approach, NIMBY behaviour may be avoided.”

The issues of public consultations in Wandsworth

All individuals agreed  that the information available online is a very useful feature of the consultation.

Having interviewed planning officer, Adelina Grigoraş found that the Council is happy enough with the softwares used on the planning portal because it makes their job easier (save money and time). They blame the lack of use on the fact that people cannot be bothered to remember their passwords. They only recognise that public consultations could be improved by organising social meeting… although the Council did exactly the opposite by cancelling all planning forum meeting since last year.

On the other hand, members of the community gave very similar responses (while not directed in any way by questions) showing that they face the same problems when using the planning portal: lack of formatting possibility, scanning letter impossible to convert into Word documents, lack of notification when changes occur, documents do not have proper descriptions/titles. All issues very easy to fix.

The author said:

“the fact that this problem persists for a few years now means that the council is not interested in improving the services they deliver“.

She added:

“Some measures need to be taken so that people are encouraged to further participate in planning decision-making, instead of just providing them the means to do so.

People are mostly annoyed by the council’s attitude towards their views and by the fact that they feel that some decisions are being imposed on them rather being unhappy with way they are consulted. It is not enough just to provide people with the tools to use a certain service, but it is also necessary to promote the service itself. The most efficient way to achieve this is by gaining the local community’s trust through showing them how their views actually make a change, instead of making them feel as a tick-off exercise.”

The formatting issue is a striking example as the study says it shows that

“Either people are right in assuming that their views actually do not matter to the council more than the law stipulates or the council did not consider the formatting issue such an important matter.”

And having noticed that no communication channel has been built between the authority and the citizens, the study says:

“Improving the services delivered will be challenging in the future if the flaws of the process are unknown to the policy-makers”

 A striking conclusion against the Council’s attitude

The conclusion of the research is very hard on Wandsworth Council. It says:

“People often feel that the cost of their participation to public consultations in terms of energy, time and money does not meet the results achieved. In fact, they felt that their views were rather dismissed and ignored and that some of the information provided by the LBW was purposely obfuscated. Part of the objectives of a democratic governance are transparency and openness, which are clearly not achieved when citizens feel ignored and believe that some things are hidden from them.“

And the final part of the study concludes:

“Yes, the online service is adequate, but this is not sustainable. A deeper analysis of the public consultations revealed a bigger picture: the tool used for consultations works, the method does not.”

It’s the occasion to look back at what we were officially complaining about in April 2014:

• David Cameron is told that Wandsworth Council’s planning procedures and ‘localism’ practice have failed
• and the Council responding that we “hurl false and groundless allegations around“

Filed under: Planning strategy