Author: Cyril Richert

98 York Road – 17 storeys proposal

An appeal (p.a. 2014/7103) has been lodged at the beginning of July by the developers against Wandsworth Planning Application Committee decision to refuse their plan to redevelop 98 York Road with a podium and buildings up to 17 storeys.

While the appellant are asking for an inquiry, the procedure will be determined by the Planning Inspectorate in accordance with Section 319A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

In addition, the developers have launched a new application (screening exercise stage only this time) for a similar scheme (in bold are exact similar terms in both applications – spot the difference):

EIA Screening Opinion application for: Demolition of existing buildings and erection of buildings up to 17-storeys (three-storey podium with 14-storey, 10-storey, 6-storey and 5 storey towers) to provide car showroom and garage/workshop (Sui Generis) on ground, second and third floors (circa 9,000sq.m. GEA) and 173 residential units above (13,400sq.m. GEA). A basement car park would provide 87 vehicle parking spaces and 184 cycle spaces. (Screening Opinion Application) 

As a reminder, previous application 2014/7103 was proposing:

Erection of a mixed-use development up to 17-storeys to provide car showroom and workshop on ground, first and second floors and 192 residential units (basement car park would provide residents with 87 vehicle and 200 cycle parking spaces + parking spaces for customers on ground floor).

Overall the main difference is a small decrease of residential units (from 192 to now 173) and increase of cycle space (from 184 to now 200).

We fail to understand the need for such a screening opinion while a very similar plan was refused by the Council and while the developers are already appealing on the rejection.

However we also note that the Council approved a scheme of several buildings up to 21 storey next door (198 York Road), which undoubtedly weaken the arguments used to justify the rejection, as they were saying :

“proposed massing and design by reason of the density of the development would constitute an unneighbourly form of development that would result in an unacceptable level of harm to the amenities of the occupants of neighbouring properties through overlooking and loss of privacy”

It seems that the main reason why the Conservative member approved one scheme and rejected the other is that developers of 98 York Road were not cynical ingenious enough to offer the relocation of a similar asset as the Royal Academy of Dance (of course some would say also that as it was presented before the May general election, Tory councillors did not want to alienate the voters…), which would have been the key element to ignore all breach of policy, objections of neighbourhood and harm to the amenities.

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

The Council has refused a retrospective planning consent to demolish the façade of the former Fishmonger/Alchemist pub (planning application  2015/2762) on Tuesday 21st July. The Alchemist pub, located at 225 St John’s Hill, was nearly totally demolished last month, without planning consent (see our story HERE).

According to the Council’s press release:

“The council responded to this unlawful demolition by launching enforcement action requiring the developer to rebuild it brick-by-brick.

A subsequent attempt to circumvent the enforcement action by obtaining retrospective permission has today (Tuesday) been rejected.

Planners ruled that the developer’s application should be refused because the loss of this important local landmark and prominent historic building in the conservation area would be against the public interest.

The developer will now be required to start work on rebuilding the pub and restoring it to its original condition. “

In a recent email exchange [21/07/2015], Planning chairman Cllr Sarah McDermott said:

“I spoke to our officers yesterday about the Alchemist/Fishmongers Arms. They are currently seeking legal advice to ensure they have a secure base for the right action. I can assure we are all ‘on the case’.”

In the press release she added:

“In our view the demolition was a very serious breach of planning rules which can only be put right by the complete rebuilding and reconstruction of this important community asset, using the same materials and to the same architectural design.”

As a consequence, it is likely that the developer will have to submit anew application for further amendment to the rest of the building, which means that former planning consent could be re-discussed and amended.

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

Application 2013/5712 (70-74 St John’s Hill) was granted in April 2015 for erection of four-storey plus basement building to provide Class A1 shops at ground floor with 8 flats above including a first floor roof garden.

It should replace an openspace/pocket park and match in shape the three other existing buildings at the crossing of St john’s Hill and Plough Road.

Original application dated 2009 (granted in approval 2010/0537 dated 15
November 2010), but the work has been delayed for two main reasons:

• The negotiation with Wandsworth Valuation Surveyors to purchase the part of the pavement Planners wish to see incorporated in the development to realign Plough Road to its original line and
  St John’s Hill as far as later road widening permits.
• Having agree this in principle and progressed to a stopping up order, there was the discovery that a Virgin Media cabinet is situated in the part of land to be sold to the development. Negotiations are in progress which have not yet been resolved and until resolved the development cannot progress.

Hopefully we should see some progress made towards the second part of 2015.

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

As expected, planning application 2015/0881 to demolish Homebase on 198 York Road, and replace by 6, 7, 9, 11 and 21 storeys to provide 254 residential units, has been recommended for approval by planning officers.

Amendment was received comprising the replacement of the commercial uses for a dance academy at ground floor level with additional floor space and an increase in height to the buildings (thus 21 storeys instead of 20). 

As usual now, the Site Specific Allocation Document (page 234) was ignored:

10.4 Homebase,York Road, SW11
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.

However, in their report, the planning officers justify the breach of policy as “this taller scheme can be supported from a strategic perspective subject to demonstrating significant planning benefit” (p25).

Although the officers point that these proposals run counter to Council policies, a point also made by the Design Review Panel, the seem to leave the general issue in the hand of the Planning Inspector currently reviewing Wandsworth local plan. And it is not only only noted in one sentence over the 80 page report, but the decision on granting the permission is meant to happen on the 14th July, when the local plan examination hearing has not finished yet but months ahead of any opinion that the inspector could possibly express!

The Wandsworth Design Review Panel expressed concerns talking about:

“No convincing reason was offered as to why the Council’s stated policy should be ignored. […] too ambitious […] exuberant design […] unresolved issues about the public realm to this street“

and concluded “the Panel did not feel minded to support the proposal as it stands“.

To spare you reading the 80 pages, I would summarize on saying that all issues and breach of policies have been brushed off with the benefits of the venue provided for the Royal Academy of Dance (currently located in Battersea Square). In what looks like a copy-cat of the developer’s advertising brochure, the officers’ report says : “The RAD as an occupier would undoubtedly add lustre to the area and could provide the centrepiece for a new cultural district attracting visitors and further investment to this part of the borough“.

Therefore, while we are supportive of the development of this site and of the move of the Royal Academy of Dance (RAD) to this site, we maintain our earlier objections to the scheme.

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

The Alchemist pub, located at 225 St John’s Hill, was nearly totally demolished last month, without planning consent.

The Evening Standard wrote:

“The Victorian pub, near Clapham Junction station, was open for more than 100 years before it closed in 2013 and fell derelict. It was pulled down in May by a developer hoping to extend it and build a block of flats.

It is the second case this year of a historic London pub being reduced to rubble apparently without full planning permission, after the destruction of the Carlton Tavern in Maida Vale in April. […]

The three-storey building was originally known as the Fishmonger’s Arms before being renamed the Alchemist and briefly the Stencil Bar.”

Developer Udhyam Amim claimed that the building was unsafe and that although they did not have consent to demolish the façade, the frontage crumbled while they were demolishing the rear.

They have now applied for a retrospective planning consent to demolish the façade: 2015/2762 – 225 St John’s Hill – demolish existing 3 storey building. The Heritage statement says:

“The building was to be partly demolished in accordance with Planning approval 2009/2994. During this phase of the works the structure was found to be of such poor quality and structurally unsafe that the only option was to demolish it immediately. However the proposed development will reinstate the front façade as closely as possible to the original albeit that the façade will be extended the full width of the site. Detailed measurements have been recorded and important original elements have been safely stored so that the original building details can be replicated.”

However we found several flows within the planning application. First of all, in the current retrospective, they are only talking about the demolition of the top part of the façade. You can clearly see on the photo at the top of this article that a major part has been also demolished on the left hand side. Although it was probably necessary to conduct the necessary construction work, this should be mentioned in the document.

In addition, the original planning consent granted permission on 11 January 2010 and valid for 3 years. The demolition took place in June 2015, clearly out of the 3 years period which would have expired in January 2013.

Although planning officers confirmed recently that the 2009 planning application was in fact valid as they notified of the start of works in 2013 (and nothing happened before 2015!) but never applied for consent to demolish. In our view, a full new planning permission should therefore have been requested to start any construction work on the site.

As quoted by the Morning Advertiser, Planning chairman councillor Sarah McDermott said:

“We are treating this as a very serious breach of planning rules, which we believe can only be put right by the complete rebuilding and reconstruction of this important community asset, using the same materials and to the same architectural design.

This building is an integral part of the St John’s Hill Grove conservation area and its loss will be keenly felt by local people. That’s why we are determined to take action to ensure it’s restored for future generations.”

We would strongly support any action which the Council sees fit to pursue in enforcing the reinstatement of the building in a satisfactory way. In addition it should be noted that – as the 2010 planning permission as expired – the developers do not have any permission for redevelopment in this site at the moment.

You will notice that the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) says:

“130. Where there is evidence of deliberate neglect of or damage to a heritage asset the deteriorated state of the heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision.”

A new planning consent should be submitted and if needs be the original building should be rebuilt.

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

281 Lavender Hill SW11 1LP – Big Fat Panda

On Tuesday 19th May, the Licensing sub-committee refused the application from Grand Union to transform Big Fat Panda restaurant into a bar/night-club. 

Councillors Peter Dawson and James Cousins, along with 3 local residents raised numerous concerns highlighting the inadequacy of the proposal.

The report from the officers counted 61 objections made, including 3 letters from Ward Councillors (one on behalf of all the Ward Councillors of Shaftesbury and Northcote Wards). They raised concerns regarding street drinking and alcohol related disorder, anti-social behaviour, crime and loitering of patrons outside the proposed premises, increased risk of violence to customers both inside and outside the venue, noise (deliveries, arriving and leaving, external area)…etc.

Despite the applicants prepared to make several amendments such as reducing capacity from 500 to 385, using the outside area for smokers only, closing at 1.30am instead of 3.3oam, they faced strong opposition during the meeting. In the minutes of the meeting it is noted that:

• Police were opposed to the application in its entirety
• The Residential Services Manager – Environmental Services (Council) said that he was opposed to any extension of hours beyond the guideline hours.
• Councillor Cousins said that the area was heavily residential [and] not a suitable venue for this part of Lavender Hill.

The decision said:

“The Sub-Committee considered that given the scale of what was proposed the granting the licence, even as amended, would in their view create an unacceptable level of noise nuisance both during the evening and late at night to neighbouring residents.”

Planning application withdrawn

A planning application 2015/1597 from Grand Union bars was proposing a change of use from A3 (restaurant and cafe) to A4 use (drinking establishment), including use of garden, area until late nights, with music and DJs, at the location currently occupied by the Big Fat Panda, a Chinese buffet restaurant. With the licensing application refused, Grant Union withdrew its planning application.

Residents felt very well and effectively represented and were delighted by the outcome. However this isn’t necessarily the end of it all. Grand Union can still appeal and possibly reapply for the drinks license later, lowering the opening hours or the number of customers (although the Council said that even 50% was still unacceptable).

We support the local residents thinking that the location is not suitable at all for this kind of business. Instead it could be used for a café/family oriented area, in line with its surrounding.

Filed under: Clapham Junction

Author: Cyril Richert

When you think about it, little has changed in Clapham Junction for the past 10 years (although the Council is planning to fill the area with many more high towers).

However taking advantage of the “history” option in Google map, we can see the two main changes in the area since 2008 and get our own opinion on the positive (or negative) impact of the new schemes.

Woburn House/Travelodge Hotel site

Woburn House October 2009

Travelodge Hotel – September 2014

Clapham Junction Exemplar Scheme

Clapham Junction crossing October 2009

Clapham Junction crossing September 2014

Filed under: Clapham Junction