Author: Cyril Richert

Local Plan examination – Hearing session 8th July 2015

The government inspector in charge of reviewing Wandsworth planning policy submitted his report on December 23rd, 2015 concluded that it “has a number of deficiencies in relation to soundness […] which mean that [he] recommend[s] non-adoption of it as submitted“.

However he recommended main modifications to make the local plan sound and the Council announced on its website that it considered that the Local Plan has been found sound and they will now make those modifications and prepare the final versions of the Local Plan for adoption in March 2016.

In his interim report at the end of July, the Inspector already recommended main modifications, especially criticising the soundness of the Site Specific Allocation Document saying:

“The introduction of the SSAD sets out its purpose but there are no policies to confirm that development should be undertaken in accordance with the site allocations. Neither is there anything to the effect that planning permission will be granted for proposals that follow the relevant design principles and that have regard to the other criteria.
Without a policy to expressly state that site allocations will be approached in this way the documents as a whole are ineffective.”

In his final conclusion the inspector says (download report here):

“In the light of representations I have made some minor amendments to the detailed wording for the sake of accuracy and soundness. I have also added one further Main Modification discussed at the hearing.”

Affordability and viability

In his report, the inspector says:

“The evidence is that there is a gross need for 1,600 units per annum which translates into a net need of 634 new units when allowance is made for re-letting existing stock.

The overall target is set at just over 4,400 affordable homes by 2030. This equates to 293 units per annum and would represent a significant shortfall compared to identified needs. However, one of the key findings of the evidence base is that, due to viability, it is impossible for Wandsworth to fully meet its needs within its own boundaries.”

However the current National Policy explicitly says that developments should not be subject to policy burdens that threaten their ability to be developed viably. Therefore, until the Government decides to promote affordable housing, hands are tied and ignoring affordable targets will remains the norm in approved applications!

In an agreement with the Council’s policy, the inspector says:

“Local amenity groups believe that the rules should be “tightened up” but 25% affordable housing will be provided at the Battersea Gasholder site in excess of the relevant minimum. This suggests that the Council’s approach is bearing fruit. Furthermore, if more market homes are delivered than anticipated either by increased densities or by schemes progressing more quickly, the number of affordable homes will increase accordingly.”

Tall buildings

Although the inspector acknowledges the modifications proposed by the Council and considers them effective and sound (“the policy has enabled developments of this type to be considered and assessed“), it is interesting to note some criticism in his report, reflecting exactly our own comments:

“57. Landmark buildings are not specifically supported by the policy but tall buildings have nevertheless been permitted in areas where they are “likely to be inappropriate”. This is potentially confusing and if starting from scratch might not have been the terminology that I would have favoured.”

As the Council responded to the Inspector criticism that the SSAD was ineffective by mentioning the document in its Core Strategy, we criticised the wording of the new policy which says the proposals, which do not comply with the SSAD, will be granted permission if they indicate that an alternative type of development is more appropriate.

>> READ: Local Plan review: Comments on Council’s modifications

On the contrary the inspector considers that this permit enough flexibility:

“In the interests of flexibility the second paragraph refers to situations where material considerations clearly indicate that an alternative type of development is appropriate but this does not alter the primacy of the allocation.”

In an unusual way which seems to acknowledge the sensitivity of this policy, the inspector adds:

“Some representors might not like the outcome of specific cases but that is a separate matter.”

In conclusion, although we acknowledge disappointment on the overall outcome of the inspector’s report, we appreciate that our arguments, so often dismissed or even mocked by the Council, were properly assessed.

On the main point of Tall Buildings, the inspector agrees that the wording “likely to be inappropriate” is… not appropriate, and that the Site Specific Allocation Document as used by the Council until now is ineffective. No victory to claim bu some comfort here that we did not contribute in vain.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

The Council is producing a new Local Plan document  covering employment premises and industrial land. This new document will replace the employment and industrial land policies in the existing Local Plan documents, the Core Strategy, Development Management Policies Document (DMPD) and the Site Specific Allocations Document (SSAD). At the same time the Council will be starting work on the full review of the Local Plan which will include review of all other policy matters (YES, already… the current local plan is still under examination, that the Council is already working on changing the not-yet-approved one!).

For many years in the past we have been saying that Wandsworth Planning policies were ineffective. The Council has always denied it and went up to calling us Nimbies because we dare highlight the facts. And yes, they are not our own fantasy, but those allegations were actually confirmed by a government inspector in charge of reviewing Wandsworth Local Plan: “the documents as a whole are ineffective” he wrote at the end of July. We were right. Is the Council going to apologise?

In the same way, we complained many times that so-called consultations were only box-ticking exercises for the Council. In December 2014 we wrote to the Council:

“As usual, we noticed (and regret) that most of the comments made by the residents, groups and societies have been rejected or ignored in your responses to the 2013 consultation on planning policy; it questions, once more, the purpose of the full process, other than ticking the right box at the right time.

We have little hope that any more consideration will be given regarding concerns of the local residents. And we believe that the same feeling is shared by all the other Societies in Wandsworth. In itself, not addressing that issue is showing the poor consideration given by Wandsworth council to the consultation process, which is only therefore fulfilling its statutory duties.”

Recent debates within the Council chamber have once again proven us correct. When the Council decided to run its own poll on its website and was eventually displeased by the result, they decided it was irrelevant regarding the entire population of the borough. Cllr Govindia, leader of Wandsworth Council, made this cynical remark:

“62% of the 1,366 respondents to the Council’s survey expressed this view – not 62% of residents. That equates to 847 people. As a percentage of the Borough’s population of around 310,000, that is 0.27%”.

Shall we say that Mr Govindia was elected as a Councillor last May 2014 by only 2134 voters, which mean “as a percentage of the Borough’s population of around 310,000, that is” 0.69%? Ooops, the leader of Wandsworth Council is only approved by 0.69% of the Borough’s population.

Following Mr Govindia reasoning, only 21 representations were received regarding the examination of the Council’s planning documents. Which is 0.0068% of the borough’s population. Let’s be honest. We will never reach 160000 representations of residents (including new born babies according to Mr Govindia’s calculation!). What’s the point of consultation?

Once again it is a very clear example of the level of consideration that the Conservative majority of Wandsworth Council is giving to consultation and democracy.

Therefore why should we spend time on this new consultation? Especially on industrial land, when the Council failed to protect and even encouraged its disappearance? Is Wandsworth Council going to listen in 2016? Chances might be as high as snow drops this Christmas.

Happy festive season.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Planning Applications Committee – Room 123

I think it is now more or less established that there will be 2 planning forums per year, as the previous one happened on the 10th June 2015 (I forgot to report about it but you can download the minutes HERE).

Therefore, a new planning forum was held on 18th November 2015. 11 individuals from community groups and societies attended the meeting, along with 4 officers and the chair of the Planning Application Committee, Cllr McDermott.

We started the meeting by reviewing last meeting’s minutes. And that was in itself already highlighting failure: Point 1, 6th sentence of last meeting’s (10th June 2015) said: “It was requested that the minutes be circulated sooner and confirmed that they will be briefer“. As a consequence they were sent… 5 months later, 1 week before this meeting, and were 10 page long! As you can see, a lot of consideration on previous discussions…

In addition (an important point in consideration for the meaning of the policies) CJAG asked that senior officer Martin Howell’s comment at the last meeting was specifically noted as: “Tall buildings will be assessed against the 15 criteria of policy DMS4” (page 8, item 11) in response to the meaning of appropriate/sensitive location for tall buildings. Martin Howell accepted the change.

1- Update on Local Plan and SPDs

A lot has been said already HERE and THERE on the local plan examination. Senior planning officer Martin Howell said that he was expecting the final report from the government inspector to be received before Christmas and commented that only minor modifications were requested.

CJAG pointed out that, as a so called “minor modification”, the inspector said:

“Without a policy to expressly state that site allocations will be approached in [accordance with the site allocations] the documents as a whole are ineffective.”

Martin Howell commented that it was only the personal opinion of a specific inspector, and that none of the others say the same.

If none of the previous inspectors made the same comment, maybe it became so obvious nowadays with numerous examples of just ignoring the full 250 pages of the Site Specific Allocation Document (SSAD) in the recent years, that it couldn’t be ignored anymore?

In addition, Martin Howell wrongly commented on the fact that at the time the Core Strategy (one of the main planning documents), was created, the SSAD did not exist. Previous reviews in 2010 (click) and 2011 (click) DID in fact contain the SSAD (click to view SSAD documents in 2009: SSAD1 & SSAD2). You can also read a February 2010 article (click) about the Clapham Junction case in the SSAD.

Other comments from community groups said that the Council can wash out the planning policies, nobody goes to appeal due to cost: with an expected cost in excess of £10k (+additional penalties if the case is lost) at least, no community group can afford any judicial review. Therefore this is only an option reserved for developers and a clear contempt for democracy to say that anyone can appeal against a planning decision, as the Leader of Wandsworth Council, Cllr Ravindia, said last April (click).

If not further modification is needed, Wandsworth Council expect the local plan to be approved with the full Council in March 2016.

At the same time, the planning department is already making amendments on local development schemes regarding Strategic Industrial Land (SIL) needed (in relation to the adoption of the Mayor’s Land for Industry and Transport SPG). It will be making the first part of the next review of the local plan starting… next year! It is expected to be adopted in October 2019.

A further review is undertaken on Housing SPD, which should be consulted in Spring 2016.

2- Lombard Road/Yord Road SPD

A number of changes were implemented following the consultation, the main modification being related to reinforcing the case for more community and public services, as well as transport facilities.

3- Update on shared Service with Richmond borough

It should be effective from September 2016. Currently Head of departments and deputies have been appointed.

4- Proposed changes in Planning Legislation including permitted development rights and Housing and Planning Bill

Following the recent decision by the government to extend the current development rights (to convert offices to residential without planning application for example) to indefinite time (never expire), Wandsworth Council is eventually considering to implement an Article 4 direction to give some limitation.

Such request must be limited and specific as the government said any such request will need to be backed up by very strong evidence. Example of Islingteon borough was given, where a full borough limitation was refused, and eventually only a pepper pot of individual locations was impleted, although it is now very effective in that borough.

An article 4 direction will be also considered to:

• remove permitted developments to turn pubs into resdiential (July 2015)
• remove changes from shops to financial services (estate agents) to protect shop frontages.

5- Major Infrastructure Schemes – Northern Line Extension; Crossrail 2; Thames Tideway Tunnel and Wandsworth One-Way – Update

Northern Line extension is ongoing.

Crossrail 2 is consulting (until January 2016) on the option of rerouting the line to Balham instead of Tooting. Wandsworth Council is seeking expert advice and if appropriate will challenge such decision.

Premilary works on Thames Super Sewer tunnel is happening. The good news is that apprently the cost added to each yearly Thames water bill should be reduced from £80 to £20, maybe even 0.

New consultation on Wandsworth Town One way system changes is happening at the following dates:

1. Friday 4th December 11-4 at Wandsworth Library
2. Wednesday, 9 Dec 6-9 at the Robing Room (Civic Centre)
3. Saturday 12 December 11-3 at Wandsworth Library

6- Any other Business

Planning application for 56-70 Putney High Street refused by the Council and approved by the mayor of London, it was said by community groups that it was the death of localism (if not already dead). The chair said that the Council is currently looking at options for judicial review… but it is unlikely to go further.

Affordable Housing should be an item on next agenda, probably in June 2016.

Noticeably it was necessary to remind the chair several time that, although she wanted to press with updates on the agenda, it was primarily a forum where individuals should be able to discuss and participate, not listen to a lecture.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Local Plan examination – Hearing session 8th July 2015

At the end of October we submitted a formal response to the consultation on proposed modifications form Wandsworth Council, following the government inspector (in charge of reviewing the Local Plan) interim letter.

Not surprisingly, we followed the comments already expressed in our previous article (click HERE). You can download our representation HERE.

Below are the key elements.

Proposed Main Modification: MM06 – SSAD1 (new policy Site Specific SAllocation Document)

In reaction to the Inspector’s criticism regarding the (in)effectiveness of the SSAD, the planning officers are proposing to include a new policy within the Core Strategy document, called SSAD1.

However we are baffled with the following paragraph saying:

“Proposals which do not comply with the SSAD will only be granted permission where material considerations clearly indicate that an alternative type of development is more appropriate, where the development would be in accordance with all other relevant policies, and where the development would not prejudice the delivery of the Core Strategy, the objectives of the relevant area spatial strategy, or SSAD compliant schemes on neighbouring sites.”

In our view, this proposed change is only creating confusion: there is no definition of “material considerations [which] clearly indicate that an alternative type of development is more appropriate”.

We wonder what considerations could be brought that could sweep out years of drafting of planning policies by many planning officers, carefully considered during numerous consultations and reviewed by planning inspectorate to form the framework of accepted policies to be applied when reviewing planning applications. Are we talking about developer’s profit (or their definition of viability)? Are we talking about CIL and section 106 contributions that the Council could welcome?

We consider also that the Council is inviting developers to ignore the SSAD policy and come with alternative plans!

Therefore the new policy is not only still ineffective regarding the SSAD document, but it makes things even worse as this time it clearly states the possibility of ignoring the SSAD, subject to justifications: it is now specifically noted that alternative plans, that local authorities have not thought of and consulted on, can be submitted and that it will be considered within the planning application decision at the same level as the SSAD.

The Wandsorth Society has responded in similar terms to the new SSAD1 policy. They said:

“There is nothing in the proposed policy that addresses the Inspector’s first requirement that development should be undertaken in accordance with the SSAD. Neither is there anything in the proposed policy that clarifies the role of the SSAD.

The Inspector introduces his interim view on the ineffectiveness of the SSAD within the Local Plan with reference to paragraph 157 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The paragraph opens

Crucially, Local Plans should: …

the Inspector quotes the fifth bullet point –

•    allocate sites to promote development and flexible use of land and provide detail about the form, scale, access and quantum of development where appropriate;  (emphasis added)

The requirement for the Local Plan to provide detail on its requirements about the form, scale and amount of development on sites it identifies for development is given further weight in paragraph 154 of the NPFF –

Local Plans should be aspirational but realistic. They should address the spatial implications of economic, social and environmental change. Local Plans should set out the opportunities for development and clear policies on what will or will not be permitted and where. Only policies that provide a clear indication of how a decision maker should react to a development proposal should be included in the plan. (emphasis added)

The SSAD is the place to provide detail about the form, scale and amount of development and to set out clear policies on what will or will not be permitted on identified sites.

As the Inspector identifies, without an express statement that development on identified sites is to be undertaken in accordance with the requirements set out in the SSAD the Local Plan is ineffective and inconsistent with national policy.“

You can download the Wandsworth Society representation HERE.

Proposed Main Modification: MM29 – IS5 (Affordable housing)

We consider that explicit reference to viability assessment, implying that submission of viability assessment is enough to brush off the affordable criteria, weaken the policy and let developers to ignore the targets. It is clearly demonstrated with evidence in the borough of Wandsworth.

Therefore it should be removed and replaced with “economic circumstances” (“changing economic conditions” is stated in the London Plan 3.64) to remain compliant with the London plan. In addition, it should be made reference to “meeting strategic as well as local needs” (London Plan) in line with ensuring “communities mixed and balanced by tenure and household income” (Policy 3.9 London Plan).

Proposed Main Modification: MM73 – DMT1 (Transport)

During the hearing, the inspector suggested that the word “significant” should replace “severe” to qualify cumulative development impact on transport.

The amendment is proposed to reflect paragraph 32 in the NPPF. However officers have only pasted para.32, nothing more. Is it because they cannot transpose at a local level, or because they do not understand the point?

The NPPF is pointing out that “decisions should take account of whether […] improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development”. Therefore, the NPPF talks about mitigation of “significant” impact that should be reflected within the local plan, instead of only repeating all words of the core planning principle.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Last July we attended the hearing organised by the government inspector in charge of reviewing Wandsworth planning policy. While we were discussing the level of housing in the borough, a senior officer acknowledged that Wandsworth was unable to meet its target of 40% affordable accommodation in every new developments. The figures are way below, although at the same time the Council is exceeding its target on total housing built.

So, why is the Council unable to promote affordable housing, or why is it building so many unaffordable units?

A simple answer is: for many reasons, including the biased assumption that by promoting luxury developments it will encourage developers to provide more affordable too (the same as the political assumption that by removing constraints on the richest, it will automatically cascade to help the poorest – although we all know from history and so many studies that it is completely wrong), the need to raise more Community Infrastructure Levy (the tax paid by developers to the Council) and Section 106 money as central government is cutting funding and Council’s budgets have been slashed (“the bigger the scheme, the fatter the bounty, leading to a situation not far from legalised bribery – or extortion, depending on which side of the bargain you are on” wrote another article in 2014), and a general consideration that new development should be looked on favourably.

First of all, what is affordable housing?

According to the London Plan (March 2015):

“Affordable housing is social rented, affordable rented and intermediate housing, provided to eligible households whose needs are not met by the market.”

In reality developers often ignore the words “social housing” and concentrate solely on “intermediate” accommodation. Therefore any scheme labelled as “affordable” only means that dwellings will be sold at up to 80% of London’s superheated market rent (an “affordable” studio flat in the new development of Battersea Power station is advertised £600,000). For a family home, the household income is extending now to £80,000 (while the average household income is only half of that amount).

Although London’s affordable housing target (Policy 3.11 SPG Housing) says: “60% of the affordable housing provision should be for social rent and 40% for intermediate rent or sale“, it is ignored in most of the developments in Wandsworth.

Wandsworth Core Strategy Policy IS5 on Housing says:

“On individual sites outside Nine Elms a proportion of at least 33% of homes should be affordable”

Let’s take a few examples with some approved applications:

For the Ram Brewery site, 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.

For 198 York Road (Homebase), of the 261 units proposed a mere 30 (11.5%) are offered as shared ownership, 8 x 1 bedroom and 22 x 2 bedroom.

And even in the Peabody’s redevelopment on St John’s Hill, only 278 units are classifieds as affordable, a reduction of 74 units comparing with the existing estate, and 53% of the 527 flats. Very ironic when remembering Peabody’s purpose, as a charity.

At a recent consultation meeting, a senior Council officer answered a local resident asking how can we build homes that the people who were born and raised here can afford to buy: “We can’t – that’s never going to happen”. Is that Wandsworth Council’s policy?

Council and developers use secret viability assessments to justify the unjustifiable

How is the Council able to approve schemes so clearly in breach of their housing policies? The answer is to be find in the viability assessment provided by the developers.

Developers who cannot provide at least a third of affordable accommodation will have to justify the proposal with a site based economic viability assessment (Core Strategy 4.186). This assessment produces the “residual land value” by deducting the total costs of the project (construction, fee and profit) from the total projected value. The game is therefore to under-estimate the projected value of selling the dwellings and maximise the construction cost. Instead of lowering their profit which must be retain, the developers will only have to explain that the more affordable units, the less viable it is.

An impressive article published by the Guardian this summer shows how developers exploit flawed planning system to minimise affordable housing. It shows that viability has got nothing to do with developers’ schemes, but everything to do with safeguarding their own profit. Outrageous, but legal.

“Within the pages of calculations, produced for Lend Lease by property agent Savills [Heygate redevelopment – Southwark], the level of “acceptable” profit is fixed at 25%”

The article explains:

“The viability assessment therefore became a way of proving that the affordable housing targets were indeed “reasonable”, while still allowing the developer to make a decent profit. Hence this profit was enshrined as a fixed cost in the viability equation, at a healthy 20% margin – a level which might have been a necessary incentive during the recession, but is now more than most hedge funds make. […]

To begin with, it worked, with many major schemes achieving 35–50% affordable housing across the city – not the 10–25% we are seeing now. “The bitter irony is that now London is back in boom,” says Duncan Bowie [former GLA senior planner] , “we’re getting much less affordable housing out of major market deals than we used to in the recession. And now the housing grant has effectively gone,” he adds, “viability has become a one-way negotiation. It’s not about best use of public money, it’s about developers using every technique and appraisal in their power to avoid compliance with planning policy.””

The viability calculations are kept secret, explains the Guardian:

“A crucial failure of the current system is that developers’ viability assessments are regularly hidden from councillors and protected from public scrutiny on the grounds of “commercial confidentiality”. Revealing the figures, developers argue, would compromise sensitive trade secrets.”

As in Wandsworth borough, many major schemes within London are assessed by BNP Paribas (main provider of viability assessment for Wandsworth planning proposals). Dr Anthony Lee, BNP Paribas’s director of financial viability advisory services, says that affordable housing requirements are only aspirational targets – they are a starting point for negotiation. The article says it’s a position that others are quick to question. “To say an affordable housing target is an ‘aspiration’ is just belittling the status of statutory plans,” says housing expert Dr Bob Colenutt. “These are policies that local authorities have spent years painstakingly developing and consulting on in a democratic process“. But if those firms are hired by local authorities to produce so-called “independent” viability assessments one day, and the day after advise the same private developers on other projects, how can their judgement be impartial?

According to the article, Steve Cowan, leader of Hammersmith and Fulham since last year – who stood on a ticket of “homes for residents, not overseas investors” – takes a no-nonsense line. “These assessments are not worth the paper they’re written on, I often just put them in the bin.”

Wouldn’t be a good idea to apply the same lines in Wandsworth?

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

A scheme was recently criticised for the extra pressure it would create on local amenities:

“Concerns have already been raised that the proposed […] 602 flats could create significant extra pressure on the local transport network, with increased traffic congestion and more passengers accessing local rail services, especially at the already busy and crowded […] Station.

There are fears too that new residential accommodation on this scale could make it much more difficult for existing residents to access local GP and hospital services, while some critics say the proposals do not provide enough parking spaces for such a large scale development.

And there are concerns that the plans to also include a large retail space on the site could have an adverse impact on nearby shops and businesses.“

You probably think that once again, this is the argument of some local community in the Borough, opposing a planning proposal, or an objection from one of the Societies. All wrong: this is actually the objection of Wandsworth Council.

Don’t worry, they don’t criticise one of the scheme developed within the borough of Wandsworth. They object to a proposal in the borough of Merton to transform Wimbledon Greyhound Stadium into a 20,000 seat football stadium built alongside more than 600 new homes.

Wandsworth’s community services spokesman Cllr Jonathan Cook said:

“Building a large football stadium and many hundreds of new homes here would certainly have an impact on the area and would inevitably lead to increased pressure on local transport infrastructure and other public services.”

Planning proposal ignoring impact on the local area are the norm nowadays in Wandsworth. Thus we have calculated that, with all the current approved or proposed development in the area of York Road/Clapham Junction, the local population might increase by more than 5000 people within the next 10 years, without any serious plan in term of local impact. Last Spring, the Battersea Society wrote:

“a halt to any further planning permissions until there has been serious consideration, with TfL, of the implications of the increased demand on road and public transport in the area.  Any study should include achievable plans for meeting the demand for those schemes already consented and realistic proposals for meeting additional demand.”

The letter was an objection to the 21 storey tower proposed for Homebase/198 York Road, which has been approved by the Council last July.

Hypocrite? In any case you will appreciate the irony… Maybe it could be used as template for future objections?

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

The government inspector in charge of reviewing Wandsworth planning policy gave a big blow to the Council saying that their Site Specific Allocation Document (SSAD), the main policy document describing major sites, is not worth the paper it is written on!

Local Plan examination – Hearing session 8th July 2015

On his interim views on the modifications needed to make the Wandsworth Local Plan Review documents sound, published at the end of July [download], the inspector wrote:

“The introduction of the SSAD sets out its purpose but there are no policies to confirm that development should be undertaken in accordance with the site allocations. Neither is there anything to the effect that planning permission will be granted for proposals that follow the relevant design principles and that have regard to the other criteria.
Without a policy to expressly state that site allocations will be approached in this way the documents as a whole are ineffective.”

This is what we have been saying all along, as we wrote to the inspector saying that the Council’s planning documents are “not effective and need to be reinforced“. The other Community groups have also said all along the same thing, the Wandsworth Society saying: “it is completely ineffectual in judging either the harm or the benefits of tall buildings. A coach and horses can be driven through the various policy guidelines.”

The inspector suggested that “the Council should consider inserting such a policy into the Core Strategy“.

Upper targets on affordable housing must be removed said inspector

The inspector also commented on affordable housing,saying that “the setting of expected maximums for the percentage of affordable units […] runs ‘against the grain’ of what the Council is trying to achieve“.

This is, once again, what CJAG pointed out, telling the inspector that either the Council should stick to the percentage set out in the policy, or dismissed it as in any case the Council is not enforcing the figures.

Although the planning officers tried to justify the targets, saying either that their omission was going to increase the land value and prevent developments, or that enforcing targets was likely to prevent developments (rather contradictory actually), the inspector said:

“Setting an arbitrary figure would confuse rather than provide clarity. Therefore on the basis of the evidence before me the reference to expected maximums is not justified and should be removed.”

We would have like the reference to be made to the entire targets (minimum AND maximum) but this is a step in the right direction.

Lombard/York Road focal point (SPD) designation should not include specific developments

Although the inspector considers the focal point designation as justified, he said:

“SPDs should not be used for the allocation of sites for a particular type of development. Consequently if the Council wishes these sites to be allocated then this should be pursued through the SSAD as proposed main modifications with accompanying sustainability appraisal and possible Habitats Regulations Assessment.”

In other words, if the Council wishes to change the considerations for some sites (lifting the rules on tall buildings for example), it should be made in the main Site policy document (SSAD), not in thefocal point designation.

Northcote Road should have protected shopping frontages

The inspector has backed Northcote ward’s councillors letter to extend some protection to retail shops in a further two blocks of Northcote Road from no 64 to 92. He said:

“I saw that Northcote Road is a lively and vibrant area and including both rows within the secondary frontage would accord with the Council’s objectives of maintaining the vitality and viability of its shopping areas.”

The Council is consulting on some modifications

Main modifications are proposed in order to make the Council’s Local Plan documents ‘sound’ and are published for a six week public consultation period between Friday 18 September and Friday 30 October 2015.  All the representations received on the main modifications received during this period will be forwarded to the Inspector for his consideration.

Council is setting a new policy called SSAD1

In reaction to the Inspector criticism regarding the (in)effectiveness of the SSAD, the planning officers are including a new policy within the Core Strategy document, called SSAD1:

“4.11 The SSAD sets out the main sites where development or other change is anticipated in the borough, where the Council has particular objectives or is supporting or promoting specific proposals. It shows development sites which will contribute to achieving the objectives of the Core Strategy. The SSAD is intended to highlight specific opportunities, objectives and requirements on particular sites. Development will also be expected to comply with other relevant policies and development standards to deliver high quality and sustainable development.
Policy SSAD 1
For sites identified in the SSAD, planning permission will be granted where the proposed development is in accordance with the principles and the detailed criteria set out for the site in the SSAD, and with the relevant area spatial strategy.
Proposals which do not comply with the SSAD will only be granted permission where material considerations clearly indicate that an alternative type of development is more appropriate, where the development would be in accordance with all other relevant policies, and where the development would not prejudice the delivery of the Core Strategy, the objectives of the relevant area spatial strategy, or SSAD compliant schemes on neighbouring sites.
Where further or updated information and guidance is given in a Supplementary Planning Document for a site identified in the SSAD, this will be a material consideration in determining applications.”

In our view, this proposed changed is only creating confusion as there is no definition of “material considerations [which] clearly indicate that an alternative type of development is more appropriate“. The Council is only inviting developers to ignore the SSAD policy and come with alternative plans!

On affordable housing (Policy IS5) the council is only suppressing the upper target for affordable housing, with modification such as: “On individual sites outside Nine Elms a proportion of at least 33% of homes should be affordable (up to an expected maximum of 40%)“.

During the hearing, the inspector suggested that the word “significant” should replace “severe” to qualify cumulative development impact on transport.

The council is suggesting to amend the policy with:

“Development, including changes of use, will be permitted where: the residual cumulative impact on the transport system (including public transport capacity and the highway network) is not severe.
i. the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the
need for major transport infrastructure;
ii. safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people;
and
iii. improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.
Development will normally only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

It seems that the planning officers completely missed the point of the inspector, as they still use the word “sever”, even reinforced as they repeat it twice, in nearly the same wordings!

And last but not least, the Council has now clarified its definition of the focal point designation for Lombard/York Road area, as they are removing the part saying that tall buildings in this area are inappropriate, to replace it with: “the site is sensitive to tall buildings” (which we know means they are welcome!)

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Local Plan examination – Hearing session 8th July 2015

Is the policy effective? That was one of the main question that we discussed during the local plan examination hearing held by a government inspector, on the 8th and 9th of July 2015.

I will briefly report a few notes on some topics below.

Affordable housing (day 1)

Although the Council is expected to exceed its targets on total new housing (things have moved significantly recently with development taking place in a number of sites and others ahead of progress), the Council acknowledge that there is a short-fall on affordable housing. They said:

“The Council is unable to meet needs in the borough”

The Council argue that they can only deliver what is viable. It is of course completely biased as the viability is defined by the developers’ scheme itself, and therefore is seeking to demonstrate that affordable housing will not make it viable. This was perfectly demonstration in an article published by the Guardian at the end of June.

According to the current policy, all schemes should propose 40% of affordable units (and 15% in Nine Elms). Although most of the developments do not even get close to those numbers, the Council argued that  if we do not have figures on affordable housing, then the land value is likely to increase. However later they said that if we put a higher figure that currently then the price of the land will not drop and it will deter developments. It must be one way or another: either the percentage contributes to the land value, or it does not!

Therefore CJAG said that either we need to need to stick to the figure, or it needs to be replaced with what the Council really means: “The percentage of affordable housing is subject to viability.”

Local Plan examination – Hearing session 9th July 2015

Tall buildings (day 2)

In paragraphs 2.9 and 2.10 of their statement ahead of the examination, the Council said that representators questioned the Council’s application of the policy, rather than the wording of the policy.

2.9 A number of representors, including the Battersea Society, Clapham Junction Action Group, Historic England (formerly English Heritage) and the Wandsworth Society have commented on the application and effectiveness of the policy. The comments focus on the Council’s application of the policy and the policy’s effectiveness, rather than the wording of the policy which has not been the subject of this review.

However it seems to me that we are clear on that point. We are not saying that the application is different from the policy. We are saying that the policy fails to provide the correct information.

The Site Specific Allocation Document (SSAD) is full of wording such as “In accordance with Core Strategy Policy IS3d, tall buildings in this location are likely to be inappropriate”.

However, planning officers confirmed at the planning forum last month that the meaning of the policy was “tall buildings will be assessed against the 15 criteria of Policy DMS4”. It is confirmed in their statement:

2.10 In the Council’s view, some of the comments made reflect a misunderstanding of the policy. DMPD Policy DMS4 describes the locations where tall buildings may be appropriate or are likely to be inappropriate. It does not define any areas of the Borough where tall buildings will always be inappropriate. It then goes on to set out the criteria which will be used by the Council, and which applicants must address, in order to demonstrate compliance with the policy.

Therefore we suggested two possibilities to make the policy clearer and more effective:

1. the Council should replace the statement “tall buildings in this location are likely to be inappropriate” in all the document by “tall buildings will be assessed against the 15 criteria of Policy DMS4“
2. or the Council should remove the word “likely” and write that building above a certain height are inappropriate, full stop (to make it “firmer”, as the Inspector said).

Focal Point (day 2)

The Council is suggesting to designate the area along York Road as a focal point. A focal point seek to promote activity and mixed-used development (and taller buildings could be considered favourably, as a knocked down effect).

The Council is currently consulting on the specific Lombard Road focal point designation (up to 9th August).

We note that the area is nearly covering all the sites between Wandsworth Town Centre and Clapham Junction Town Centre (as it comprises part of Winstanley/York road estates). Therefore we fail to understand to notion of “point” as in “focal point” when the area covers several square kilometres and is covering nearly the full area between 2 town centres, already promoting activity and seen more favourable to tall buildings. It looks to be a blanket policy to designate the whole part of Wandsworth borough as free land for major developments.

In addition, we note that major schemes have the tendency to be designated as “landmarks” (“It would provide a high quality landmark feature” in the officer’s report to justify 28 storey at Lombard road; “The distinctive form of the block has the potential to introduce a local landmark” in the officer’s report to justify 21 storeys at 198 York road; etc), in order to justify their size and the breach of current  policy. Therefore we wonder how Wandsworth can promote a cluster of landmarks (!) in the York Road are!

Transport

The Council is proposing to change policy DMT1 to say:

“Development, including changes of use, will be permitted where the residual cumulative impact on the transport system, (including public transport capacity and the highway network) is not severe.”

However the inspector pointed out that the NPPF is unclear and suggested that alternative wording could be :

“where cumulative impact wouldn’t be significant.”

The inspector should publish his report on the soundness of the plan, and his recommendations, within the next few months.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

A few days ago appeared a new proposal of a 30 storey tower at 100 York road. If it looks like a “deja vu” it’s because developers have been proposing a 17 storeys for the site next door (98 York Road), and another 20 storey tower for 198 York Road.

For all those sites, Wandsworth Council planning documents say that buildings of 9 storeys or more “are likely to be inappropriate“. Maybe there is a typo and the Council wanted to write 29? Or do you think that developers cannot read?

Maybe it is just that they ignore the policy documents as they know that the planning officers will approve any major plan, with the same usual arguments: “on balance the positive aspects are considered to outweigh other aspects of the scheme” , and “benefits outweigh harms/detrimental impact” (choose your preferred option – all real quotes from recent officer’s reports).

It was recently confirmed by a developer who said: “‘are likely’ […] does not go as far as advising that the site would not be suitable for tall buildings. Furthermore, as there is a number of emerging tall buildings proposed within the York Road/Lombard Road area, the Council […] acknowledges [that] tall buildings would not be out of place.”

Therefore we can only wonder : is the Council out of control? As hundreds of local residents are complaining, they are ignored as practice continue.

“On balance” the Council says it’s ok to ignore planning policy

A 26 storey tower has been proposed in Garatt Lane (Wandsworth Town). However this is in contradiction with planning documents. The Site Specific Allocations Document (Feb. 2012) states (page 80):

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 [5/6 storeys] as “less successful” and some reduction of existing storey heights will be sought, in part, on both sites.

No surprise, as this is the Council’s own application, they approved it. In order to justify it, the officer’s report says:

“26.4 Block B is fully acknowledged to be a tall addition to the Town Centre but the harm that it would cause is considered to be less than substantial in terms of the tests set by the NPPF and outweighed by public benefits.

26.6 There are a number of listed buildings located near the site; […] where harm may be caused, the benefits to the public are considered to outweigh those harms.

26.7 The site is located within a conservation area. […] on balance the positive aspects of the development are considered to outweigh other aspects of the scheme and overall the proposed is viewed favourably. “

>> Read the full story: Benefits outweigh harms to justify 26 storey tower

A 28 storey tower has been recommended for approval in Lombard Road (beside the Grade II listed Battersea railway bridge). Again, this is in contradiction with planning documents. The Site Specific Allocations Document (Feb. 2012) states (page 174):

Tall buildings: Tall buildings [9 storeys and more] in this location are likely to be inappropriate […] in accordance with DMPD Policy DMS4.

As usual, because this is inappropriate the planning department recommends to … approve the scheme! In order to justify it, the officer’s report says:

“15.2 The proposed building at 28 storeys is far in excess of the 8 storey maximum height that the SSAD suggests is appropriate for this site. […] There are considered to be material considerations that allow this proposed height to be considered favourably. “

>> Read the full story: 28 storey tower recommended for approval, in total breach of planning documents

Proposed 3D view of the site.

A 20 storey tower has been recommended for approval in 198 York Road (currently Homebase, which is leaving at the end of the year). Once more, this is in contradiction with planning documents. The Site Specific Allocations Document (Feb. 2012) states (page 234):

Tall buildings: Tall buildings [9 storeys and more] in this location are likely to be inappropriate […] in accordance with DMPD Policy DMS4.

No recommendation to approve yet. And this time, even the usually very cautious “design” panel set up by the Council raised several concerns: “No convincing reason was offered as to why the Council’s stated policy should be ignored“, “too ambitious“, “exuberant  design“.

>> Read the full story: Bye Bye Homebase, welcome 20 storey buildings

A 14 storey tower was approved a few months ago at 56 – 66 Gwynne Road SW11 3UW, near Lombard Road, following a positive recommendation from planning officers.

Another proposal for (only) 9 storeys was refused in 2008 in the same street, for the following reason:

“The proposed development would result in an unneighbourly and substantial overdevelopment of the site, with its scale, form and massing resulting in a visually dominant and overbearing development“

But 2008 was a long time ago and it looks now as there is no longer any limit to acceptable development.

Also keep in mind that the Councils planning documents for the site next door (Lombard Road) specified than more than 8 storeys is inappropriate.

>> Read the full story: 14 storey towers approved near Lombard Road, contrary to planning documents

A 17 storey tower had been recommended for approval in 98 York Road (currently a car dealer). Of course, this is in contradiction with planning documents which says that buildings of more than 8 storeys are likely to be inappropriate for the site.

And as usual again, the planning department recommended to approve the scheme saying:

“At up to 17-storeys the height poses a challenge to the tall buildings policy,however, there are considered to be material considerations that justify the proposed heights […]

It is clear that there would be a notable impact on neighbouring properties as a result of the development. This would relate to loss of privacy, outlook and overbearance and daylight and sunlight. Whilst borderline, in each of the assessments, it was considered that on balance acceptable.“

This time however the Council’s committee decided to go against the recommendation and refused the scheme. 

Was it because Wandsworth Council eventually decided that they could not carry on ignoring their own planning documents (hmm the officers thought they could…)?

Was it because the opposition of the local Conservatives Councillors?

Or was it because the developers were arrogant enough to pin-point the un-effectiveness of the current planning policies and to say that by approving so many developments in breach of their planning rules, the Council was actually changing them?

The latest example of a 30 storey tower proposed for a site stated as inappropriate for buildings more than 8 storeys confirms that developers consider Wandsworth as a free zone with rules loose enough to by ignored.

And with their pre-application discussions with officers and usual Council’s catchwords “on balance…” and “where harm may be caused, the benefits to the public are considered to outweigh those harms” everything is now acceptable in Wandsworth hand-in-glove with developers!

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Following the rejection by the government inspector of Wandsworth Council’s planning policy submission, a new series of documents were open to comments until Friday 28th November 2014.

The Clapham Junction Action Group has submitted a representation, mostly responding to the previous response to the 2013 consultation (our previous participation is HERE).

Our introductory letter says:

“I am writing to you regarding the consultation on the Local Plan, 2nd proposed submission version (CS, DMPD and SSAD) submitted by the Council.

You will find attached the comments made by the Clapham Junction Action Group regarding the series of documents, most of them being specific to the area of Clapham Junction.

As we commented in 2013, we consider that most of our comments are still valid.

As usual, we noticed (and regret) that most of the comments made by the residents, groups and societies have been rejected or ignored in your responses to the 2013 consultation on planning policy; it questions, once more, the purpose of the full process, other than ticking the right box at the right time.

We have little hope that any more consideration will be given regarding concerns of the local residents. And we believe that the same feeling is shared by all the other Societies in Wandsworth. In itself, not addressing that issue is showing the poor consideration given by Wandsworth council to the consultation process, which is only therefore fulfilling its statutory duties.

We also understand that this general opinion was reflected by the response addressed to the Wandsworth Society by Paul Martin, Chief Executive and Director of Administration, on the 17th of July 2014: “I had thought that the press statement that the Council released within days of our letter set out the Council’s position”. And surely he couldn’t ignore the fact that this statement was calling Societies and residents groups in Wandsworth NIMBYs who “choose to hurl false and groundless allegations around”.

Therefore, although you might consider that this representation is another response hurling false and groundless allegations, we wish to add our comments to the review that will be made by the government inspector.

Yours sincerely“

Our comments consider that neither the Core Strategy, the Development Management Policies Document and the Sites Specific Allocations Document are effective and justified. Therefore they are unsound.

We consider that the wording of the policies is an open door to all understanding and misuse by the Council to justify any planning development. We have already numerous examples where factual breach of policies is balanced with subjective “overall benefit” in Wandsworth planning reports. Those statements have no place in the document and must be removed for the policy to become effective.

>>> You can download and read our submission HERE.

Filed under: Planning strategy