Consultation on proposals to change sibling priority rule

Author: Cyril Richert

A while ago (2011) we published a few articles on school campaign in Clapham Junction. This was mainly triggered by both the successful campaign to open a new secondary school in the former Bolingbroke Hospital, and the less successful campaign to amend the catchment area for the Belleville school’s annexe in Forthbridge road.

The council is now consulting parents in Wandsworth on proposed changes to school admission rules that aim to make it easier for children to attend their local neighbourhood community school.

The public consultation will ask parents if they support moves to update the current arrangements that give preference to siblings when a school is oversubscribed.

Under the existing admission arrangements priority for a school place is given to a younger sibling regardless of where they live.

The council is proposing that sibling priority should only apply in future to children who live within 800 metres of the school. Siblings residing further away would no longer have priority over children living closer.

The council believe the proposed approach would strike a fairer balance as the majority of families with siblings would not be affected by the change.

Some arguments in favour of the change

Education spokesman Cllr Kathy Tracey said:

“In quite a significant number of cases the families of these siblings no longer live anywhere near the school. Some will have moved out of the area after their eldest child secured a place, safe in the knowledge that younger brothers or sisters will be given priority over children who live much closer.

“There have been cases recently where schools have had to offer almost all their places to siblings and this means that some local children are missing out.

“We don’t think this is fair which is why we are proposing a solution that we believe strikes a better balance and makes it fairer for those parents and children who live closer to schools.” 

Data from the 2014 round of admissions show that of 712 children who were offered a place at a community school on the basis of sibling priority, 174 lived more than 800 metres away from the school

Some arguments against the change

There are many reason why one may consider that this proposal is not as fair as it claims.

The most obvious reason is the difficulty (impossibility?) that it would create to families with more than 1 child is they were to attend 2 different primary schools (are they not finishing at the same time?). Not even talking about more than 2 children…!

Also, would it be fair that one is going to one (excellent) school because the parents were renting in the area, while the other one will have to go to another school because the parents bought (or forced to moved because lease terminated) later an accommodation 850 meters from the school (which is less than the distance between Debenhams and Belleville School).

And last but not least, what about parents who were in the catchment area for their first child while living only 900m away, but are not anymore for their second child as the school became very popular and the catchment shrank quickly (this happened to Wix which had a catchment area of more than 1km a few years ago, just to see it shrink to less than 600m recently!)?

It might be only my own opinion, but I can’t restrain thinking that what looks like a good idea is actually not as fair as it claims and could create even more difficulties to local families, who have to struggle with enormous pressure on school admission and catchments shrinking in Clapham Junction.

There is huge demand for primary school places in the area, partly due to an increased birth rate (are we not called “nappy valley”?). But people who lived in the area in the early ’90s will remember Wandsworth Council closing and selling Victorian primary school buildings to private builders because they were not needed as the birth rate was low.

Don’t you think that the Council should stop playing families against each other in the battle for places and have a priority to build more places and create outstanding schools?

Also, bear in mind that academies, church schools and foundation schools are responsible for their own admission criteria, so it won’t apply to them (although the Council will claim to put pressure on them).

You can find more arguments pros and cons, and participate to a very interesting discussion on NappyValleyNet.

To find out more about the proposal and to take part in the consultation parents can visit http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/admissionsconsultation. The consultation will run until Friday, October 31.


 

The council is also tightening up the rules that allow the use of temporary addresses to obtain a school place:

  • The address used on an application will have to be the family’s normal permanent address. Parents will not be able to move into a property on a temporary basis to increase their chances of gaining a school place. Nor will they be able to use a relative’s, a childminder’s or a business address.
  • If the family own a property but make their application from a different address, the council will assume that the second address is a temporary one. Similarly if a family is renting somewhere because their main home is being renovated, then the latter will be considered their permanent address. And if the family own more than one property additional checks will be carried out to determine which one is actually their main home.
  • Temporary addresses will only be considered if the applicants are able to prove they have sold or permanently moved out of their normal address.

Any changes to the admission rules would come into effect for the 2016/7 academic year.

Filed under: School Campaigns Consultation on proposals to change sibling priority rule

Battersea Park to become… a local Silverstone?

Author: Julia Matcham

Battersea Park to become… a local Silverstone?

Wandsworth Council is proposing to use Battersea Park for Formula E electric cars motor racing in June 2015, and repeat that for the next five years.

Surely the Council have taken enough commercial advantage of our public park?

There is always something going on and most of it not affordable by many Battersea residents. Obviously this does underwrite some of our taxes and some flexibility is reasonable providing it doesn’t disturb the peace or seriously interrupt the citizens use of what is after all a public park and which might be said to belong to all of us.

Now we have the prospect of a local Silverstone. It is our park. Do we really want this ‘exciting event’???

I quote from the Council’s own document on the subject but to read the full paper on the subject http://batterseasociety.org.uk/docs/formulae.pdf

The following two extracts from the above cut to the chase:

‘In summary, the proposal involves 20 cars in total (10 being on the track at any one time) on a circuit using all the park’s carriage drives, with the British Genius events site housing the pits and the boules area being temporarily turned into a chicane. It is accepted that there will be some temporary disruption to the Park’s normal activities, but given that this impact will be minimised, and that there will be no permanent impact on the Park’s heritage features, it is proposed that, in light of the generally-positive findings of the Heritage Impact Assessment, ‘in principle’ approval is given to hosting the event, subject to the views of the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) and planning permission’ [….]

‘The Overview and Scrutiny Committee are asked to support recommendations. The recommendations in this Paper enable the Council to proceed with consideration of bringing an exciting event to the Borough, with attendant income, which would place the Council at the forefront of promoting electric vehicles in the urban environment and supporting its work on improvements to air quality. The global Formula E programme (of ten events in the first 2014/15 season) has now started, with the first race having been successfully held in Beijing on 13th September 2014’.

 More information comes from The Battersea Society which is, to quote them:

“opposing plans to use the Carriage Drive of Battersea Park for motor racing in June 2015, and repeat that for the next five years.  The races would be between Formula E electric cars.  Some people may have seen coverage of the recent race in Beijing, using what was clearly a proper motor racing circuit.”

A YouTube video of the highlights of this event can be seen here:

Races in Battersea Park would be for one or possibly two days, during which the whole of the park would be closed to the public and 30,000 people would be expected to attend.

Constructing and dismantling safety barriers, pit stops, enclosures and a chicane would also disrupt use of the park for several weeks before and after the event.

The Battersea Society said:

“[We] believes all this is directly contrary to the purpose of the park and the extensive use local people make of it.  If the plans go ahead there will be a planning application (probably in November), but we fear this will then be treated as a formality.”

If you want your views to be taken into account, please contact your local councillors by email before Monday October 6 evening (the date of the next Council Executive meeting). You can find their details here.

Alternatively you can email the Leader of Wandsworth Council, Ravi Govindia.

Filed under: Miscellaneous Battersea Park to become… a local Silverstone?

Redevelopment of the Princes Head pub site, Falcon Road

Author: Cyril Richert

Redevelopment of the Princes Head pub site, Falcon Road

Prince’s Head pub, 44-46 Falcon Road SW11 2LR

A planning application has been submitted in July for the redevelopment of the Prince’s Head pub located at 44-46 Falcon Road SW11 2LR (p.a. 2014/3881). The proposal is:

Demolition of existing building and erection of a five storey, plus basement, building to provide 25 residential units (4 x one bedroom, 20 x two bedroom, 1 x three bedroom) and two commercial units (Class A1/A2, 470sqm of floorspace) together with cycle storage and refuse stores.

Redevelopment of the Princes Head pub site, Falcon Road

While everyone welcomes the closure of the pub and the redevelopment of the area, although objection received raised concerns about the lack of provision for site parking. One of the comment says:

“The previous planning application had a condition attached to it that residents of the new development would not be entitled to apply for resident parking permits. Does this condition still form part of this revised application? The developers may wish to revisit the possibility of providing underground parking at the development.”

Comments received on the Council website ask for confirmation that new residents would not be eligible to apply for resident parking permits in the nearby Kambala Estate.

Another comment questioned the need of more retail for the area, saying:

“why the ground floor is proposed as retail when so many empty units have been vacant for a considerable period within a five minute walk of the development”

The Battersea Society sent a very detailed objection raising concerns on:

  • Lack of off-street parking
  • Affordable Housing
  • Dominance of the architecture (the visualisation the proposed building is substantially taller than neighbouring buildings and will be overly dominant in the streetscape)
  • Viability of the Retail Frontage (risk of empty shop frontages at street level)

You can make online comment on the application on the Council Website HERE.

Filed under: Clapham Junction Redevelopment of the Princes Head pub site, Falcon Road

Judicial review planned on Council decision to grant permission despite objections

Author: Cyril Richert

Judicial review planned on Council decision to grant permission despite objections

83b Nightingale Lane

A residential extension (p.a 2014/3230 & 2014/3430) was granted last August to build a basement extension under a Grade II listed building, garden and outbuilding to provide additional level of living accommodation.

The owner said:

“My motivation for the project is quite simply to create space. I have a young growing family and small dog and require more space for what seems to be a never ending supply of toys and nappies!”

It is assume that the excavation would be dug using a mini digger on site, and then transported to a skip using a handheld or driven mini dumper.

The owner said that the idea came from the successful basement application next door (p.a. 2013/2583). However that application was related to a single-storey rear extension and described in the officer’s report as a “modest projection”, a “proportionate addition to the property” and a small cellar refurbished. Nothing to compare therefore with the above proposal for a huge basement, underneath all the house, the garden and its additional building.

While 12 neighbours objected to the proposal (no supports), they were ignored by Wandsworth Council which decided to grant planning permission.

One of the objector has now decided to file a judicial review, in order to contest the decision. The important points raised by the objector in a letter addressed to the members of the Planning Committee are:

  1. Officer’s failed to identify that 83b Nightingale Lane is a listed building, and mistakenly believe that only 83 Nightingale Lane is a listed building;
  2. The officers confuse the building as being within the curtilage, and fail to differentiate between the curtilage and setting of the listed building – two lawfully different entities;
  3. By failing to identify the building of 83b Nightingale Lane as being listed, Officers have therefore not assessed any part of the work to the listed building in their entirety;
  4. Officer’s have inexplicably and without any credible justification, labelled this Grade II listed building as:
    … not considered to be a heritage asset of particularly high significance with many similar examples of such buildings in immediate locality (the entire adjacent terrace) and throughout the borough.

In addition, it is noted that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, para 129) says:

“Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular  significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal  (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking  account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should  take this assessment into account when considering the impact of a proposal  on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise conflict between the heritage asset’s  conservation and any aspect of the proposal.”

And it appears that the officer recommendation omits the internal arrangement of buildings, the demolition and rebuilding of the garden wall and the impact on significance through the connection between the 2 dwellings though the basement.

David Andrews, previous Wandsworth Conservation Officer, raised an objection to the same scheme in a previous application, but his comments were omitted in the report presented before the Planning Committee.

We will look forward to the outcome of this Judicial Review. Two years ago a pre-action protocol letter (first stage of the Judicial Review) against Wandsworth Council lead the Council to squash their planning permission.

Filed under: Miscellaneous Judicial review planned on Council decision to grant permission despite objections

Council says it’s important to avoid judicial challenge on their planning decision

Author: Cyril Richert

After waiting several months, the Council has eventually responded in a formal letter to our criticism on Wandsworth planning process.

At the beginning of April, the Putney Society, Wandsworth Society, the Clapham Junction Action Group and Friends of Putney Common community group all wrote to the Prime Minister 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.

Within the following weeks, we received an official acknowledgement from the Prime Minister’s Office, from the Mayor of London’s office (GLA) and from the Secretary of States for Local Government (Eric Pickles received a copy of our letter). Despite a letter being also sent to Wandsworth Council, the only response we had received from the Council was a spokesperson calling us “NIMBYs” because we dare feeling concerned about planning procedures in the borough.

During a hustings meeting organised by the Wandsworth Society, Cllr Ravi Govindia, leader of Wandsworth Council, told the audience that he considered that statutory planning policy could be treated as loose guidelines.

However, due to the failure of Wandsworth Council to give us any formal response to our letter addressed to the leader (which seems to be the trend as they have also ignored our planning application request of information on the former Granada building sent… 9 months ago!) the Wandsworth Society wrote again to the Council at the end of June, saying:

“We wrote at length to the Leader of the Council on 3rd April together with a copy of our letter to the Prime Minister. To date we have received no acknowledgement of receipt – it was delivered to the Town Hall by hand – nor response to it.  A copy was sent to the Borough planner also as it concerned this department.  We attach a copy of the letter together with the resume of our detailed report which listed our concerns about how the planning authority performs.

We believe that the substance of the letter and the report to the Leader warrants a serious and detailed response.  Should this not be forthcoming very soon we will heed the advice of the Mayor of London, to whom a copy of the report was also sent, and approach the Local Ombudsman to ask for his consideration of the Council’s handling of planning policy in the Borough.”

Is calling us “Nimbys” and saying that they value our input compatible?

This letter triggered eventually a response from Paul Martin, Chief Executive and Director of Administration, that was received on the 17th of July. His letter said (read in full HERE):

“I had thought that the press statement that the Council released within days of our letter set out the Council’s position”

Some would consider here that right from the beginning the Chief Executive of Wandsworth Council is on the hedge of insult, as we all remember that the Council’s statement called us Nimbys (and the press was prompt to highlight that, HERE and THERE), and beside the bold statement we publicly said that we were looking forward to receiving a proper response. We would refrain on that thought, to think that Mr Martin was mis-informed.

“[…] we do value the input from local amenity groups as well as local residents and businesses.”

And indeed showing their values by calling the Nimbys…?

Policies have to be considered as whole, not individually

Basically the line of defence of Wandsworth Council is to say that policies and objectives have to be considered “as a whole” (repeated tree times in the letter).

The letter says:

“The purpose of the planning system is to take into account of national planning policies and the local development plan ([…]) as a whole when reaching a planning decision. […] It is not the case of “ticking off” every policy as “complied” or “not complied”, but reaching a decision that a proposal overall is in accordance with the policies and objectives of the development plan as a whole.”

He adds:

“I is not the case of local opposition in itself being a reason to turn down a planning application; any decision needs to be based on sound planning policy.”

We would not disagree with the observations that deciding planning applications can be difficult and that decisions need to be based on sound planning policy. And he is right in saying that local opposition is not in itself justification for refusing an application. Although they could be better at explaining how the significance of opposition has been assessed. 

He said that officer’s report is central to understanding how a whole raft of planning policies have been applied:

“We have thorough and full officer reports in order to ensure that our decision-making is robust and compliant with national policy and the development plan as a whole.”

However as he suggests that this is the case if the proposal has been agreed, his response does not explain the case if the proposal has not been agreed by the planning committee and moreover there is no analysis of how a decision is reached when the committee disagrees with the officers’ recommendation in the minutes of the meeting. 

Does that mean that when the Planning Application Committee (PAC) disagree with the recommendation of the officers, that decision is not compliant with policies? The truth is that there have been no officer/Committee disagreements for a good while now. The PAC is firmly under the control of the pre-meeting party decisions, which in turn are controlled by the Cabinet. Long gone are the days when the mantra of ‘officers guide, councillors decide’ was the case. Any councillor showing a consistent questioning attitude soon loses a place on the committee. If it was the Chairman that would be a considerable financial loss.

Paul Martin brings up the issue of the legality of planning decisions as a reason why they are / have to be robust, a good point. However, we think it is likely that anxiety about challenges to refusals has too great an influence on approving applications and is a contributing factor in what we consider to be poor decision taking. On the other hand, any judicial procedure including starting a Judicial Review process would cost dozen of thousand of pounds to any individual or Societies and therefore challenge by residents is considered as always very unlikely by the Council (although it may happen…).

Based on those elements, it’s easy to appreciate which of developers or residents interests the Council might have in mind when reaching a decision!

 

Filed under: Planning strategy Council says it’s important to avoid judicial challenge on their planning decision

New signals-controlled crossing for Brighton Yard

Author: Cyril Richert

New signals-controlled crossing for Brighton Yard

Brighton Yard crossing

A signals-controlled pelican crossing (a pair of poles each with a standard set of traffic lights facing oncoming traffic, a push button and two illuminated “green men”) as now been installed between the Brighton Yard entrance at Clapham Junction station, and the Peabody entry.

It follows a successful campaign from Wandsworth Living Street which strongly highlighted this need.

Filed under: The station New signals-controlled crossing for Brighton Yard

Display hoarding appeal dismissed at Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

Display hoarding appeal dismissed at Clapham JunctionFollowing the refusal by the Council to grant planning permission to erect a (temporary) large, externally illuminated advertising hoarding at Clapham Junction, outside of Wessex House (St John’s Hill), the appeal lodged by the owner has been also dismissed by the Planning Inspector on July 30th, 2014.

The Inspector said:

“Whilst this would have the potential for an adverse effect on  the appearance of the CJCA it would not be as great as the significant negative  impact of the proposed large illuminated advertisement in this prominent site  in a Conservation Area, close to Listed Buildings. The limited benefit of the work to the bulding does not outweigh the harm that would be caused. On  balance, therefore, I consider that the proposal would not preserve the character and appearance of the CJCA.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the display of the scaffold screen building wrap advertisement would be detrimental to the interests of amenity.”

Read the full decision here. Planning application 2014/0492.

Filed under: Clapham Junction Display hoarding appeal dismissed at Clapham Junction

Planning notice: Higher tower proposed for the Ram Brewery site

Author: Cyril Richert

Planning notice: Higher tower proposed for the Ram Brewery site

Tower proposed by developers on Ram Brewery site.

A new planning application (2014/4143) was received for the land located at former Ram brewery site, Wandsworth High Street, to increase the height of the tower by 2.7m and to provide an additional 14 residential units within the block.

It will add an additional storey, bringing the tower to 37 storey heigh.

Comments should be sent to the Council before the end of August (28/08/2014).

We stand by our previous comments as we consider that a high tower at that location is inappropriate; unfortunately we expect a smooth approval by the Council, as usual in those cases.

Filed under: Ram Brewery Planning notice: Higher tower proposed for the Ram Brewery site

Wandsworth Radio soon in Battersea

Author: Cyril Richert

Wandsworth Radio is a community online radio station in Battersea, run by volunteers from across the London Borough of Wandsworth.

In order to gather the few thousand pounds needed for its launch, the radio successfully used crowdfunding to help launch the station’s studio. Over £3,800 have been raised so far but you can still support the initiative and donate until Friday 8th August 2014: http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/WandsworthRadio

You can listen to some shows on their website: http://www.wandsworthradio.com

And we hope they will have soon a show on Clapham Junction! 🙂

Filed under: Miscellaneous Wandsworth Radio soon in Battersea

Wandsworth Radio soon in Battersea

Author: Cyril Richert

Wandsworth Radio is a community online radio station in Battersea, run by volunteers from across the London Borough of Wandsworth.

In order to gather the few thousand pounds needed for its launch, the radio successfully used crowdfunding to help launch the station’s studio. Over £3,800 have been raised so far but you can still support the initiative and donate until Friday 8th August 2014: http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/WandsworthRadio

You can listen to some shows on their website: http://www.wandsworthradio.com

And we hope they will have soon a show on Clapham Junction! 🙂

Filed under: Miscellaneous Wandsworth Radio soon in Battersea