Author: Cyril Richert

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

 1- Scheme of Delegation

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

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

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

2- Proposed changes in Planning Legislation – Permitted Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3- Local Plan Consultation

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

4 – Further Supplementary Planning Documents

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

Tall buildings: In accordance with Core Strategy Policy IS3d, tall buildings in this location are likely to be inappropriate. In accordance with DMPD Policy DMS4, the height at which a development in this location will be considered to be tall is 9 storeys.

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

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

Questions

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

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

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

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

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

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

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

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

South Thames College/Welbeck House/17-27 Garratt Lane, SW18 (SSAD page 80):

Tall buildings: In accordance with the Stage 2 Urban Design Study – Tall Buildings, the site is sensitive to tall buildings […] Para 2.8 of the S2UDS refers to both the offices in Garratt Lane and Welbeck House as “less successful” and some reduction of existing storey heights will be sought, in part, on both sites. This is to ensure a better relationship to adjoining listed buildings and to enhance the appearance of the Wandsworth Town Conservation Area

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

Bramlands: Grant Road/Falcon Road Junction

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

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

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

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

Tall buildings: In accordance with Core Strategy Policy IS3d, tall buildings in this location are likely to be inappropriate. In accordance with DMPD Policy DMS4, the height at which a development in this location will be considered to be tall is 9 storeys.

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

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

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

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

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

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

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

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

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

Successful consultation is not exposing a fait-accompli

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

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

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

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

The issues of public consultations in Wandsworth

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

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

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

The author said:

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

She added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

 A striking conclusion against the Council’s attitude

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

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

And the final part of the study concludes:

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

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

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

Filed under: Planning strategy

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

Author: Cyril Richert

The Government Inspector raised issues, primarily relating to the number and nature of the changes included in the Submission Versions of the planning documents and finally rejected Wandsworth Council’s submission of the Local Plan.

The Inspector wrote to the Council on 21 March 2014 seeking clarification on a matter and wrote again at the beginning of April providing further details of his concerns. Eventually, on May 9th, the Council received a letter from the Inspector advising withdrawal of the Local Plan, which led to a formal withdrawal by Wandsworth Council on July 9th, 2014.

The Council conducted a formal consultation in Summer 2013, without taking much notice of the responses

Following a review of the planning documents (Core Strategy, DMPD, SSAD, …) to bring the documents in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the London Plan 2011, the Council consulted last year on the changes and CJAG contributed to this consultation last July 2013. Our general point was that most of the comments made by the residents, groups and societies have been rejected or ignored in previous consultations on planning policy; it questions the purpose of the full process, other than ticking the right box at the right time.

The Council published its report on the Consultation on changes for its Local Plan (item 9 – Paper 14-141) earlier this year. In total 34 respondents made representations relating to the different planning documents. This time again, all our comments regarding the meaning of the policy (wording, strengthening) were rejected, to the exception of our comment on acceptable images (which shows have we say all along that there is a real problem). Our accepted comments related to factual corrections on dates and updating information on sites already developed.

The final version was submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination on 17 March 2014.

The Inspector identified changes made in planning policy but not submitted to public consultation

Initially, the Inspector noticed that “the March 2014 submission versions of these Plans include changes which go beyond those made in the 2013 versions” and asked if those changes “have been subject to consultation“. As the Council acknowledged that those amendments were not subject to formal consultation, it responded that it was common practice and therefore the normal examination should proceed.

To what the Inspector wagged his finger and pointed out the Planning Inspectorate’s publication ‘Examining Local Plans Procedural Practice’ which summarises the three procedures for making changes to a plan on submission, during the examination and at adoption: you must consult on main modification. An example is the changes to the housing numbers, which is clearly strategic in nature, although not subject to consultation.

The Inspector went even further, saying that despite the Council arguing that in some cases “representations lie outside the scope of the review” (i.e the textual alteration), they themselves “have proposed alterations to designations and policies in May 2014 which you had proposed to leave unaltered in 2013“. The Inspector added that he couldn’t be clear whether the entire Plan was open for comment or just specific parts of it.

The Inspector concluded that “the relevant legal requirements regarding consultation have not been complied with. In these circumstances, for the reasons outlined above, the most appropriate option would be for the Council to consider withdrawing the Plan“.

Wandsworth Council insisted the Inspector was wrong

In a second letter, the Council refused to accept the Inspector’s comments, as they were still asserting that their submission was sound, and that the Inspector was making changes to the usual examination process.

In addition the Council explained that – although there is no reference to a review in consultation letters – they carried out minor changes in response to representations with the exception to tall buildings and the boundaries of the industrial designations where changes where refused.

However that differentiation  seems to come only in reaction to presentations as it was not specified at the last Planning Forum meeting in June 2013 where Martin Howell (Head of Planning and Development) said “it doesn’t stop commenting to things that have not been changed, but encourages to comment on things that have been changed“.

The Inspector squashed the Council’s arguments and confirmed that the consultation did not exclude tall building policy

The Inspector confirmed our understanding that there was no restriction squashing the position held by the Council, listing a number of reasons including:

• There is no indication of a partial or limited review in any letter and press notice.
• The website does refer to a ‘review’ of the Plan (the scope or extent of the review is not clearly defined on the website or elsewhere.
• The introductory text to the 2013 Core Strategy (para 1.6) does not define the extent of any partial review. Instead it states that “… representations can be made on the soundness of the documents”.
• It appears to be nothing that clearly states that the opportunity to make comments was limited solely to altered text or to any specific policies, policy criteria, supporting text, topics, sections or allocations.

The Council have advanced changes in 2014 to parts of the Plan which you had intended to leave unaltered in 2013. Even if some of these changes could be classified as minor, this nevertheless appears to indicate that the review was not limited to the 2013 changes. (example with the change on wide angle images, p 2.53 DMPD).

Therefore the Inspector said that his intention was to examine the Plan on the basis that it is a full review and he would need to assess whether the Plan in its entirety was sound. And therefore the Council cannot exclude representations made on tall buildings and the boundaries of industrial designations and they will have to be considered under Regulation 23.

The Council tried to bypass the Inspector

Moreover, as the Council asked for a meeting with the Inspectorate would he not agree to change his views, the Inspector rejected the option underpinning the fact that the Inspector is appointed by the Secretary of State to conduct the examination, and therefore he cannot be forced to an opinion.

At the beginning of July the Council decided to throw the towel and consequently to withdraw the document. It indicates that a new set of consultation should happen in Autumn 2014 with the aim to re-submit for examination in Spring 2015.

As the Inspector suggested, it will have “the option of telling existing representors that they should provide comments on the consolidated 2014 version under Regulation 19 as previous representations on the 2013 version would not be considered during the examination“.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

On Wednesday 10th April, to the question: “If the adopted Local and National Planning Policies are only treated as loose guidelines which can be ignored at will, then Wandsworth Council should state that such is the case” the leader of Wandsworth Council, Conservative Cllr Ravi Govindia, answered:

“Yes, the keyword is ‘guidelines’“.

Indeed, in the view of the conservative leader, planning policies might be only those loose guidelines that can be ignored at will when the Council needs to secure payment to fund their budget and building targets (remember that the Council get Community Infrastructure Levy (or former section 106) from the development granted).

In Wandsworth planning department however, officers appear to consider that policies are statutory documents as they write (for example in the conclusion of planning application decision 2014/0492):

“We have made available detailed advice in the form of our statutory policies in the Local Plan consisting of the Core Strategy, Development Management Policies Document, Supplementary planning documents and Conservation Appraisals and where appropriate the Site Specific Allocations Document [… This is] clearly contrary to our statutory policies and negotiation could not overcome the reasons for refusal”.

According to Meridian Webster (an Encyclopaedia Britannica company), the definition of the word statutory says:

“stat·u·to·ry. adjective \ˈsta-chə-ˌtȯr-ē\. : of or relating to formal laws or statutes. : controlled or determined by a law or rule“

Indeed local policies say clearly (Local Plan – DMPD p13): “Planning permission will be granted for developments which comply with the following criteria…“

Therefore are they loose guidelines or policies relating to formal laws and rules? Can we ask the Council to make up their mind and tell us clearly and officially?

Because in case they are only loose guidelines that can be ignored, what is the point of spending so much time (and money) in planning frameworks and local and national rules? Let’s officially declare the borough an open land available for architects to create their own “signature” buildings disregarding of the heritage, the environment and the local communities. I can see millions to save in case planning rules are unnecessary, while preserving essential effective public services.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Impact of the Ram Brewery development as granted by the Council

With 230 new towers planned, London is going to become “Gotham City”, claims last week article in the Evening Standard.

In a statement in the Observer at the end of March, signatories from sculptor Sir Antony Gormley to philosopher Alain de Botton, author Alan Bennett, Stirling prize-winning architect Alison Brooks, and London mayoral hopefuls Dame Tessa Jowell and MP David Lammy warn: “The skyline of London is out of control.”

More than 200 towers of at least 20 storeys are under construction or being planned, of which three-quarters will provide luxury residential flats, according to New London Architecture (NLA), a discussion and education forum.

The Skyline campaign, organised jointly by the Architects’ Journal magazine and the Observer newspaper, demands a new mayoral Skyline Commission “to review and enable well-designed development” as well as a new policy for tall buildings that “ensures high-quality architecture.”

In their statement, more than 70 signatories, including societies and associations, write:

“Over 200 tall buildings, from 20 storeys to much greater heights, are currently consented or proposed. Many of them are hugely prominent and grossly insensitive to their immediate context and appearance on the skyline.

This fundamental transformation is taking place with a shocking lack of public awareness, consultation or debate.

Planning and political systems are proving inadequate to protect the valued qualities of London, or provide a coherent and positive vision for the future skyline. The official policy is that tall buildings should be ‘well designed and in the right place’, yet implementation of policy is fragmented and weak.

Too many of these towers are of mediocre architectural quality and badly sited. Many show little consideration for scale and setting, make minimal contribution to public realm or street-level experience and are designed without concern for their cumulative effect and impact. Their generic designs, typical of fast-growing cities around the world, threaten London’s unique character and identity.”

The Observer’s architecture critic Rowan Moore said:

“Nobody could go to the places already being shaped by towers – Elephant and Castle, Vauxhall or Stratford High Street, a discus-throw from the Olympic Park – and say that these are great places to linger, or that the tall buildings now rising there enhance the experience. Images of these places in the future, when further skyscrapers will jostle for attention, suggest more of the same. New urban zones are being created with no overall idea of how the parts contribute to the whole, of the places that are being made at their base.”

Back in 2005, the St George Tower, in Vauxhall, was granted on appeal by John Prescott, despite advice from his advisers that it “could set a precedent for the indiscriminate scattering of very tall buildings across London“. Here we are: either the Labour deputy PM was completely blinded or full of cynicism, but 10 years later the warning of the advisers becomes a reality:

How the view along the Thames from Vauxhall/Nine Elms might look. – photo from the Evening Standard 14/04/2014

There is a very good series of animation “before/after” where you can view the dramatic impact of the new skyline in a few years by clicking and sliding on the images:

• How is London’s skyline going to change? An interactive guide

All this campaign echoes our criticisms on Wandsworth Council’s attitude, making frequent decisions in breach of local and national policies, and blatantly ignoring local community outcry.

• David Cameron is told that Wandsworth Council’s planning procedures and ‘localism’ practice have failed

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Impact of the Ram Brewery development as granted by the Council

With 230 new towers planned, London is going to become “Gotham City”, claims last week article in the Evening Standard.

In a statement in the Observer at the end of March, signatories from sculptor Sir Antony Gormley to philosopher Alain de Botton, author Alan Bennett, Stirling prize-winning architect Alison Brooks, and London mayoral hopefuls Dame Tessa Jowell and MP David Lammy warn: “The skyline of London is out of control.”

More than 200 towers of at least 20 storeys are under construction or being planned, of which three-quarters will provide luxury residential flats, according to New London Architecture (NLA), a discussion and education forum.

The Skyline campaign, organised jointly by the Architects’ Journal magazine and the Observer newspaper, demands a new mayoral Skyline Commission “to review and enable well-designed development” as well as a new policy for tall buildings that “ensures high-quality architecture.”

In their statement, more than 70 signatories, including societies and associations, write:

“Over 200 tall buildings, from 20 storeys to much greater heights, are currently consented or proposed. Many of them are hugely prominent and grossly insensitive to their immediate context and appearance on the skyline.

This fundamental transformation is taking place with a shocking lack of public awareness, consultation or debate.

Planning and political systems are proving inadequate to protect the valued qualities of London, or provide a coherent and positive vision for the future skyline. The official policy is that tall buildings should be ‘well designed and in the right place’, yet implementation of policy is fragmented and weak.

Too many of these towers are of mediocre architectural quality and badly sited. Many show little consideration for scale and setting, make minimal contribution to public realm or street-level experience and are designed without concern for their cumulative effect and impact. Their generic designs, typical of fast-growing cities around the world, threaten London’s unique character and identity.”

The Observer’s architecture critic Rowan Moore said:

“Nobody could go to the places already being shaped by towers – Elephant and Castle, Vauxhall or Stratford High Street, a discus-throw from the Olympic Park – and say that these are great places to linger, or that the tall buildings now rising there enhance the experience. Images of these places in the future, when further skyscrapers will jostle for attention, suggest more of the same. New urban zones are being created with no overall idea of how the parts contribute to the whole, of the places that are being made at their base.”

Back in 2005, the St George Tower, in Vauxhall, was granted on appeal by John Prescott, despite advice from his advisers that it “could set a precedent for the indiscriminate scattering of very tall buildings across London“. Here we are: either the Labour deputy PM was completely blinded or full of cynicism, but 10 years later the warning of the advisers becomes a reality:

How the view along the Thames from Vauxhall/Nine Elms might look. – photo from the Evening Standard 14/04/2014

There is a very good series of animation “before/after” where you can view the dramatic impact of the new skyline in a few years by clicking and sliding on the images:

• How is London’s skyline going to change? An interactive guide

All this campaign echoes our criticisms on Wandsworth Council’s attitude, making frequent decisions in breach of local and national policies, and blatantly ignoring local community outcry.

• David Cameron is told that Wandsworth Council’s planning procedures and ‘localism’ practice have failed

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

To the question: “If the adopted Local and National Planning Policies are only treated as loose guidelines which can be ignored at will, then Wandsworth Council should state that such is the case” the leader of Wandsworth Council, Cllr Govindia, answered: “Yes, the keyword is ‘guidelines’“.

On Thursday 10th April, the Wandsworth Society organised a local election hustings with the representatives of the Conservatives, the Labour, the Libdems, UKIP and the Greens.

Following the comment, Battersea Society Secretary Harvey Heath said:

“This is full admission that the Council considers that Policies are just rules that can be bended and ignored“.

Local policies are statutory Development Plan for the borough and must comply with a long list of requirements and must be submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination and reviewed by an independent Planning Inspector and subject to the changes identified in the Inspector’s Examination report. Policies say clearly (DMPD p13): “Planning permission will be granted for developments which comply with the following criteria…“

Policies are NOT guidelines (and Cllr Govindia, as former Chairman of the Planning Committee for a decade, knows that very well indeed).

Cllr Rex Osborn, leader of the Labour, proposes that the public should be able to make representation at the Planning Application Committee meetings (this is currently forbidden by Wandsworth Council – the only borough in London not allowing such representation) and that Community Societies/groups should be involved in planning discussions with the planning department (maybe represented at the PAC?).

All the other local election candidates said yesterday that policies are not only guidelines and therefore should be applied at a much tougher level than currently.

Cllr Govindia also said that all decisions can always be challenged in court with a judicial review. However this process is way above the financial possibilities of most of individuals, community groups and even Societies. The only recent case known is when the Friends of Putney Common managed to quashed a Council’s planning decision, after spending £12,000 in solicitor and lawyer’s fees.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Following our letter to the Prime Minister on Wandsworth Council’s planning procedures and ‘localism’ practice failures, the Council said we were all NIMBYies who “hurl false and groundless allegations around“.

According to the local media PutneySW15.com, a council spokesman said:

“Planning decisions are made by ordinary local people who have been elected to represent the wider community. They make hundreds of decisions each year having weighed up all the available evidence, including all the arguments in favour of permission and also all those against. 

Their difficult task is to balance competing interests for the benefit of the whole community – to improve the borough’s built environment and to provide new homes, offices, schools, shops and other economic benefits like jobs. The council has worked in partnership with organisations like the Putney and Wandsworth Societies for many years with the shared aim of creating a better borough for people to live and work in and we are proud of our record. 

Unfortunately this letter and the evidence presented alongside it is based on a skewed and wholly selective picture of the local planning system. All our decisions are based on planning legislation and we scrupulously follow out own local guidelines where these do not conflict with national planning rules. It is always regrettable therefore that some people have a more NIMBYist approach and choose to hurl false and groundless allegations around when they don’t get their own way.” 

On Monday 7th April, Amenity Societies and Community Groups in the Borough of Wandsworth have teamed up to publish an ‘Open Letter’ to David Cameron showing major failures in its planning procedures, and calling for an urgent independent review into its planning processes.

Beside the bold comment made by the Council’s spokesperson, we look forward to receiving a  response from Cllr Ravi Govindia, leader of the Council, to our letter’s detailed criticisms and a reply from the Prime Minister about our call for an independent review. It’s easy to be rude, less easy to give detailed explanations to the detailed criticisms set out in the letter’s Summary/Appendix.

You can find reports and articles about the initiative in the following websites.

On participants’ websites:

• Putney Society
• Wandsworth Society
• Clapham Junction Action Group
• Friends of Putney Common

Putney SW15.com: Local residents’ groups write open letter to David Cameron (with forum discussion HERE).

Wandsworth SW18.com: Call Made for Urgent Review of Planning in Wandsworth (with forum discussion HERE).

Streetlife: Forum posts

Thanks for the many messages of support such as:

“Thanks to those who put this together.  Living in a small community being swamped by gross, ugly developments around Wandsworth Bridge roundabout, I repeatedly wonder whether any of this would be allowed anywhere near where the councillors live.  Perhaps if there are councillors reading this they can site cases.”

Filed under: Planning strategy