Author: Cyril Richert

Wandsworth London Borough Council is named in an ‘Open Letter’ to David Cameron showing major failures in its planning procedures, and calling for the Prime Minister to set up an urgent independent review.

The Putney Society, Wandsworth Society, the Clapham Junction Action Group and Friends of Putney Common community group have all written 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.

“The issues which concern us all are the fairness and legitimacy of Wandsworth Council’s planning procedures. Planning decisions frequently breach local and national policies and guidelines and, in recent years, there have been too many examples of bad practice for this to be ignored.”

Many residents have lost faith in the fairness and impartiality of the planning procedures used by Wandsworth Council. We have attempted to engage with the Council to get them to follow their own local and also national policies, but to no avail. Our analysis of recent planning decisions makes damning reading. We hope that the Prime Minister, who has always supported Localism personally and as Prime Minister, will respond to our appeal for an urgent review of what is going wrong in Wandsworth.

In a hard-hitting letter addressed personally to David Cameron the group of Wandsworth amenity societies and community groups have combined to call for a review of planning procedures in the Borough of Wandsworth.

We cite the issues which concern them as representatives of the residents of Wandsworth which stretches from Battersea in the East to Putney in the West and which is the largest Borough in London. We say that planning decisions made by the Council and its officers frequently breach local and national policies and guidelines, and that recently there have been far too many examples of bad practice to be ignored, as shown in our detailed report to the Prime Minister included with our letter.

The report sets out numerous examples of policies agreed in the Local Plan which have been blatantly circumvented or swept aside. What is more, they show that in many cases objections made by many individual local residents are just undervalued and discounted.

Wandsworth Council has been guilty of ignoring policies and guidelines related to key planning concerns: General Development Principles, Managing the Historic Environment, Tall Buildings, Methods of Visual Representation, Supplementary Planning as it relates to Housing, Affordable Housing, Conservation and Heritage matters, Residential Properties, Transport and Offices, and Consultation.

The letter goes on to point out that however impressive the Local Plan related to planning and development might seem on paper, the guidelines and policies enshrined in that document are useless if they are consistently ignored by the Council. The adopted Local and Planning Policies are only treated as loose guidelines which can be ignored at will, as the case studies described in the report sent to the Prime Minster clearly demonstrate.

In calling for the Prime Minister to set up an urgent independent review the letter says:

“Your government has rightly placed localism at the heart of the agenda for reforming local government practices, and indeed you have said you are a “confirmed localist”. When launching your party’s local government campaign in Nuneaton last year you rightly criticised the “top down, target-driven, big bossy, bureaucratic, we know best arrogance” of some local authorities and declared that this had been “turned upside down.” The detailed information provided with this letter unfortunately shows clearly that Wandsworth Borough Council is falling far short in putting localism into practice in its planning procedures. It has failed to listen to its residents and the groups that represent them, on numerous occasions.

We are therefore requesting that an independent review into Wandsworth’s planning arrangements is set up urgently to trigger the necessary change. “

• [ You can download the full report HERE]

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

The Council has now published its report on the Consultation on changes for its Local Plan (item 9 – Paper 14-141). In total 34 respondents made representations relating to the different planning documents (Core Strategy, DMPD, SSAD, …).

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.

As you see below, this time again, all our comments regarding the meaning of the policy (wording, strengthening) have been 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 relate to factual corrections on dates and updating information on sites already developed.

You will find below the relevant parts on CJAG’s comments through the 40 pages. We have quickly highlighted in green when our comments have been accepted, and in red when they have been rejected.

Comments on the plan as a whole/general principles

4.1 […] Whilst a number of the general comments indicated that the Plan was not sound these did not relate to the overall approach adopted by the Council. Some comments, e.g from the Wandsworth Society and Ernshaw Place Residents’ Association (EPRA) related to how the policies applied to the assessment of planning applications, and how residents views were taken into account in assessing planning applications.

4.2 The Council does not agree with EPRA’s assertion that “residents have played part in devising these plans“. The Council has undertaken its statutory duties in consulting the public and other bodies throughout the development of the Local Plan and the Local Development Framework documents on which they are based. As reflected in this document, the Council has carefully reviewed all the comments received at every stage in the production of the documents, and agreed numerous amendments in response to the comments received.

Comments on the Core Strategy & DMPD

4.3 This section sets out comments on Chapters 1 – 3 of the Core Strategy (Introduction; Issues problems and challenges; and A spatial vision and strategic objectives for Wandsworth) and Chapter 1 of the Development Management Policies Document ((DMPD) Introduction).

4.4 The date of consultation on the topics to be included in the review in paragraph 1.4 of the Core Strategy has been corrected as identified by Clapham Junction Action Group (CJAG) and EPRA.

4.7 The CJAG and the EPRA commented on changes to the Council’s Strategic Priorities set out in Core Strategy paragraph 1.20. The change to paragraph 1.20 reflects the priorities identified in the Council’s latest Corporate Business Plan.

4.11 Paragraph 4.1 has been amended to reflect the latest population projections and revised housing targets. The changes do not reflect “a major goal to transform Wandsworth into a dormitory borough” as suggested by CJAG.

Sustainability

4.12 The Putney and Wandsworth Societies, Clapham Junction Action Group (CJAG) Ernshaw Place Residents Association (EPRA) and Wandsworth Clinical Commissioning Group (WCCG) made various comments on the wording of Policy SD1. No changes are proposed as the policy uses standard wording provided by the Planning Inspectorate to reflect the principles in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Policy was supported by Barratt London Ltd and the St James Group.

Housing – The provision of new homes

4.28 The Putney Society, Ernshaw Place Residents Association (EPRA) and Clapham Junction Action Group (CJAG) commented that the wording of CS paragraph 4.46. As is stated in the paragraph and in DMPD Policy DMTS13b. A balance has to be reached between different objectives in the plan, particularly in relation to the development of sites in East Putney. This balancing of different policy objectives is taken into full account in the assessment of planning applications when each application is considered on its merits. No changes are therefore proposed to this policy.

4.44 The Clapham Junction Action Group (CJAG) considered that the guidelines as to what is considered inappropriate development in back gardens lacked clarity and contend that neighbouring properties and any conservation area should also be taken into account. This objection is not accepted as further guidance is provided in the Council’s Housing SPD which is referenced in both the contextual paragraphs referred to and in the policy. The DMPD also contains a policy and further guidance for proposed development in conservation  areas (Policy DMS2). The CJAG and the Ernshaw Place Residents’ Association considered that there should be a stronger approach to protecting spaces between buildings and considered that spaces between buildings should be no less important outside conservation areas than within them. This is not accepted as, whilst Policy DMS1b seeks to ensure that new development contributes positively to local character, conservation areas are covered by separate legislation, and form part of the borough’s Historic Assets. As such, the requirements for managing development in conservation areas have been set out separately in DMPD Policy DMS2.

Business, industry and waste

4.90 + 4.99 Clapham Junction Action Group (CJAG) commented on an apparent contradiction in figures for projected employment growth quoted in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.49. The difference is due to the different time periods quoted. The reference to the London Office Market Review has been corrected.

Design – Tall Buildings

4.118 The Wandsworth Society and the CJAG suggested that more exact policy guidelines on acceptable images would be helpful and that DMPD paragraph 2.53 should be moved or referenced elsewhere as it should relate to more than just tall buildings. The Council accepts this representation and proposes alteration of the wording to paragraph 2.53 with respect to wide-angle lens images and an additional reference to visual assessments in paragraph 2.7.

• NB: we haven’t seen the proposed wording. We said: “The guidelines as expressed in DMPD 2.53 are clearly misleading if not wrong and create un-necessary confusion on the permitted documents. We strongly suggest that this is changed with a correct guideline and that the incorrect word “can” is removed such as: “The use of wide angle lenses, for example, can distorts perspective and distance, and thus the relationship between the foreground and background, and this will not be acceptable.”

4.120 The WCCG supported Policy DMS4 Criteria to determine inclusion and environmental health whilst suggesting points planning applications should address. The Wandsworth Society and the CJAG commented that DMS4 needs strengthening, with added definition and also that it needs to be applied with more rigour. Kinley Financial Inc suggested that any assessment of tall buildings should be undertaken in the context of wider objectives and that DMS4 was too restrictive. The Council considers the policy wording and intent to be clear and no changes are proposed to the adopted DMS4 policy.

Clapham Junction

4.184 The Clapham Junction Action Group request that the Territorial Army centre site should be added as a new site in the SSAD. Whilst acknowledging that the TA centre is of a size (approx 0.4ha) that would warrant consideration of inclusion as a separate site within the SSAD it was never brought to the Council’s attention in the early stages of the plan preparation period. As there wouldn’t be any consultation on this potential new site there would be no opportunity for public comment and therefore it is considered too late in the plan process to add a further site.

4.185 Royal Mail Group made a representation relating to the ASDA, LIDL and Boots site (4.1.1) on Falcon Lane, requesting clarification regarding the retention of the Royal Mail Delivery Office. The council supports the retention of the post office use which includes the delivery office facility. The text has been amended to make this clear. The  Clapham Junction Action Group also made comments relating to parts of this site that have since been developed. References to the part of the site excluded by the re-drawn SSAD boundary have been updated to reflect this.

4.186 The Clapham Junction Action Group made a representation on the Clapham Junction Station Approach site (4.1.3) relating the the new access facilities that have been developed at Brighton Yard and disputing that enhanced retail provision here could relieve any pressure from Northcote Road. The text has been updated to reflect the part of the station site that has since been improved. They also suggested that the Peabody site should be deleted following the grant of permission for redevelopment. As the site is not yet substantially completed it is not proposed to remove it from the document.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

The Council has now published its report on the Consultation on changes for its Local Plan (item 9 – Paper 14-141). In total 34 respondents made representations relating to the different planning documents (Core Strategy, DMPD, SSAD, …).

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.

As you see below, this time again, all our comments regarding the meaning of the policy (wording, strengthening) have been 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 relate to factual corrections on dates and updating information on sites already developed.

You will find below the relevant parts on CJAG’s comments through the 40 pages. We have quickly highlighted in green when our comments have been accepted, and in red when they have been rejected.

Comments on the plan as a whole/general principles

4.1 […] Whilst a number of the general comments indicated that the Plan was not sound these did not relate to the overall approach adopted by the Council. Some comments, e.g from the Wandsworth Society and Ernshaw Place Residents’ Association (EPRA) related to how the policies applied to the assessment of planning applications, and how residents views were taken into account in assessing planning applications.

4.2 The Council does not agree with EPRA’s assertion that “residents have played part in devising these plans“. The Council has undertaken its statutory duties in consulting the public and other bodies throughout the development of the Local Plan and the Local Development Framework documents on which they are based. As reflected in this document, the Council has carefully reviewed all the comments received at every stage in the production of the documents, and agreed numerous amendments in response to the comments received.

Comments on the Core Strategy & DMPD

4.3 This section sets out comments on Chapters 1 – 3 of the Core Strategy (Introduction; Issues problems and challenges; and A spatial vision and strategic objectives for Wandsworth) and Chapter 1 of the Development Management Policies Document ((DMPD) Introduction).

4.4 The date of consultation on the topics to be included in the review in paragraph 1.4 of the Core Strategy has been corrected as identified by Clapham Junction Action Group (CJAG) and EPRA.

4.7 The CJAG and the EPRA commented on changes to the Council’s Strategic Priorities set out in Core Strategy paragraph 1.20. The change to paragraph 1.20 reflects the priorities identified in the Council’s latest Corporate Business Plan.

4.11 Paragraph 4.1 has been amended to reflect the latest population projections and revised housing targets. The changes do not reflect “a major goal to transform Wandsworth into a dormitory borough” as suggested by CJAG.

Sustainability

4.12 The Putney and Wandsworth Societies, Clapham Junction Action Group (CJAG) Ernshaw Place Residents Association (EPRA) and Wandsworth Clinical Commissioning Group (WCCG) made various comments on the wording of Policy SD1. No changes are proposed as the policy uses standard wording provided by the Planning Inspectorate to reflect the principles in the National Planning Policy Framework. The Policy was supported by Barratt London Ltd and the St James Group.

Housing – The provision of new homes

4.28 The Putney Society, Ernshaw Place Residents Association (EPRA) and Clapham Junction Action Group (CJAG) commented that the wording of CS paragraph 4.46. As is stated in the paragraph and in DMPD Policy DMTS13b. A balance has to be reached between different objectives in the plan, particularly in relation to the development of sites in East Putney. This balancing of different policy objectives is taken into full account in the assessment of planning applications when each application is considered on its merits. No changes are therefore proposed to this policy.

4.44 The Clapham Junction Action Group (CJAG) considered that the guidelines as to what is considered inappropriate development in back gardens lacked clarity and contend that neighbouring properties and any conservation area should also be taken into account. This objection is not accepted as further guidance is provided in the Council’s Housing SPD which is referenced in both the contextual paragraphs referred to and in the policy. The DMPD also contains a policy and further guidance for proposed development in conservation  areas (Policy DMS2). The CJAG and the Ernshaw Place Residents’ Association considered that there should be a stronger approach to protecting spaces between buildings and considered that spaces between buildings should be no less important outside conservation areas than within them. This is not accepted as, whilst Policy DMS1b seeks to ensure that new development contributes positively to local character, conservation areas are covered by separate legislation, and form part of the borough’s Historic Assets. As such, the requirements for managing development in conservation areas have been set out separately in DMPD Policy DMS2.

Business, industry and waste

4.90 + 4.99 Clapham Junction Action Group (CJAG) commented on an apparent contradiction in figures for projected employment growth quoted in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.49. The difference is due to the different time periods quoted. The reference to the London Office Market Review has been corrected.

Design – Tall Buildings

4.118 The Wandsworth Society and the CJAG suggested that more exact policy guidelines on acceptable images would be helpful and that DMPD paragraph 2.53 should be moved or referenced elsewhere as it should relate to more than just tall buildings. The Council accepts this representation and proposes alteration of the wording to paragraph 2.53 with respect to wide-angle lens images and an additional reference to visual assessments in paragraph 2.7.

• The new proposed wording is (underlined): 2.53 Detailed visual assessments submitted with applications in order to demonstrate compliance with this policy will be required to accurately represent what would be seen by the human eye. As, tThe use of wide angle lenses, for example, can distort perspective and distance, and thus the relationship between the foreground and background, and this will not normally be acceptable. However, in exceptional circumstances where a wider context is required, alternative visual assessments, such as the use of wide angled lenses, may be submitted in addition. >>> Although the addition of the last sentence can be seen as an improvement, the refusal to remove the misleading word “can” will still lead to the same issues as we highlighted. The new wording is even more confusing that before!

4.120 The WCCG supported Policy DMS4 Criteria to determine inclusion and environmental health whilst suggesting points planning applications should address. The Wandsworth Society and the CJAG commented that DMS4 needs strengthening, with added definition and also that it needs to be applied with more rigour. Kinley Financial Inc suggested that any assessment of tall buildings should be undertaken in the context of wider objectives and that DMS4 was too restrictive. The Council considers the policy wording and intent to be clear and no changes are proposed to the adopted DMS4 policy.

Clapham Junction

4.184 The Clapham Junction Action Group request that the Territorial Army centre site should be added as a new site in the SSAD. Whilst acknowledging that the TA centre is of a size (approx 0.4ha) that would warrant consideration of inclusion as a separate site within the SSAD it was never brought to the Council’s attention in the early stages of the plan preparation period. As there wouldn’t be any consultation on this potential new site there would be no opportunity for public comment and therefore it is considered too late in the plan process to add a further site.

4.185 Royal Mail Group made a representation relating to the ASDA, LIDL and Boots site (4.1.1) on Falcon Lane, requesting clarification regarding the retention of the Royal Mail Delivery Office. The council supports the retention of the post office use which includes the delivery office facility. The text has been amended to make this clear. The  Clapham Junction Action Group also made comments relating to parts of this site that have since been developed. References to the part of the site excluded by the re-drawn SSAD boundary have been updated to reflect this.

4.186 The Clapham Junction Action Group made a representation on the Clapham Junction Station Approach site (4.1.3) relating the the new access facilities that have been developed at Brighton Yard and disputing that enhanced retail provision here could relieve any pressure from Northcote Road. The text has been updated to reflect the part of the station site that has since been improved. They also suggested that the Peabody site should be deleted following the grant of permission for redevelopment. As the site is not yet substantially completed it is not proposed to remove it from the document.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Authors: Cyril Richert with Julia Matcham and Jaqui Bowers for the impressions from the gallery

In the Council chamber speaking in the debate on Planning. Credit: Cllr Peter Carpenter ‏@RoehamptonCllr

At the initiative of the Labour Group, a motion citing the public opposition to tall buildings and excessive development (as expressed so often by the Wandsworth Society, the Battersea Society and the Putney Society) was defeated by the Tory Councillors in Wednesday (5th February 2014) full Council meeting.

The motion, called “Planning for People not Profits“, was presented on the Friday before by Labour Councillors Carpenter and Belton. It said:

(a) This Council notes:-

(i) the public’s opposition to the excessive growth of high rise blocks as expressed by the Wandsworth Society, the Battersea Society and the Putney Society;

(ii) the need for an increasing not a decreasing proportion of affordable housing in new developments;

(iii) the need to avoid excessive development on sites and to ensure the provision of community facilities within new developments; and

(iv) that the Council has adopted planning policies to safeguard against these excesses and deficiencies

(b) This Council therefore resolves to ask the Planning Applications Committee not to approve planning applications which they deem, following due consideration of the planning merits of each application, to be in material breach of Wandsworth Council’s adopted planning policies .

The motion (drafted by the Labour Group, independently of the Societies’ knowledge) asked the Council to note certain things such as the general disapproval of so much high rise as commented on by Putney, Battersea, and Wandsworth Societies in the recent years; seek the increase in affordable housing rather than a decrease; ask the Planning Application Committee not to approve applications that go against council policies.

It was introduced as a non-contentious motion intended to achieve consensus irrespective of party allegiance. Indeed it is difficult to see how it could be considered objectionable, apart from the implied criticism of the Planning Applications Committee that they had been approving applications that were in breach of the Council’s adopted planning policies.

However, the motion was defeated, voting was on party lines: 35 against, 13 in favour.

Impressions from the Gallery

There is something quite medieval about the scene. The lady Mayor in  her golden necklace in the centre of the stage and the tall chairs occupied by important people in a row each side of her looks like something out of an ancient painting. This impression is made the more so by anachronistically starting the event with a Prayer.

The public are in the Gallery overlooking the whole scene although the sight lines necessitate a large screen upon which is projected the current speaker. Due to the poor acoustics, it is incredibly hard to hear some of the Councillors (it is also an issue in the Planning Committee room).

As might be expected from a Council which is predominantly Tory and therefore always gets its own way, all the exchanges were mostly of the Ya Boo variety: “When you were in power“….etc.! It wouldn’t have mattered how rationally those on the left put their cases, they were trampled underfoot. Councillor Nick Cuff was reading a newspaper which drew a strident comment from the Gallery about what we paid them to do! A brief moment of entertainment!

When we got to our Item 18 ‘Planning for people not profits’ the title was immediately sneered at by Councillor Knowles who argued for the sanctity of profits and how it was laughable for people to ignore that. He added that due to immigration, it was necessary to build high. Councillor Nick Cuff (who is chairing the planning committee every month) said that, in a recent survey [1], residents of Wandsworth were not interested in Planning; they were indeed much more interested in refuse collections. [yet why is it that Wandsworth Planning meetings have a greater number of the public attending than any other?]. The Tory Councillors told us about how they had beaten their own targets for affordable housing over the last 5 years and gave a lot of figures about the number of people living in our borough and how they all needed houses and going up was the only way to fit them in.

It was pointed out in response that the housing wasn’t going to people from our borough but very frequently bought as an investment and left empty. It was also reminded to the Tory Councillors that they were only being asked that the Council should not be in ‘material breach of Wandsworth Council’s adopted planning policies’.

The argument about tall buildings not being what people wanted was supported by several Labour Councillors, including Councillor Tony Belton who pointed out that 70% of the Battersea Wharf area was buy-to-let, and Councillor Rex Osborn who asked Councillors to allow resident representation at Planning meetings in line with many other local authority’ planning meeting.

Needless to say the Motion’ wasn’t supported.

The video of the meeting should be available at some point HERE.

[1] From the Report by the Chief Executive and Director of Administration on results of the 2013 survey of Wandsworth residents and presented to the Finance and Corporate Resources overview and scrutiny Committee 20th Nov 2013. The range of other services/issues was cited by fewer than 10% of responses. Perhaps surprisingly, Council Tax was mentioned by only 1%, less than 0.5% mentioned Education/schools, policing or parking and just 2 people cited Planning as having a big impact on their views of the Council.

PS: another motion asking the Council for a consultation to introduce a 20mph default speed limit on our residential urban streets, borough-wide, instead of considering petitions for a specific street one by one, has been refused by the Tory majority A sad night for Wandsworth residents!

In today’s press release the Council is only consulting local people in two wards (Bedford in Balham and Furzedown in Tooting). Not really “saying to people across the borough ‘do you want a 20mph limit in your neighbourhood’” as stated by Cabinet member Cllr Russell King.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

“A record number of London skyscrapers are in the pipeline, prompting campaigners to warn that the capital’s skyline could be ruined by a “wall of glass” as property developers seek to capitalise on foreign investor demand for homes in the capital” wrote the Financial Times on Monday 27th January.

Those are news that we have been reporting in several occasion on this website. Foreign developers see London as a very attractive market for they home clients, with money to invest in the UK capital. Thus, Chinese are buying the Ram Brewery site, and it follows rival Chinese developer Wanda’s announcement to build a 60 storey skyscraper in Nine Elms, (mostly luxury flats with a small portion considered as “affordable”).

While David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson encourage bigger Chinese investment in Britain, the Parliament as expressed concerns with a  debate about properties being bought by foreigners, last June.

In the FT, Susan Emmett, a director of residential research at estate agency Savills, said that “We need to be building at higher densities to deliver the number of homes London needs. Tall residential blocks help achieve this, particularly near public transport nodes.” But do we need more empty units bought by people for the only purpose of using it as an investment/safe deposit, instead of leaving there? Have a look at Imperial Wharf to see the consequence of such developments.

Can we trust politicians to protect where we live?

During its first campaign in 2008, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, pledged not to approve such plans if residents express outrage. Six years ago is probably eternity in politicians view and therefore forgettable. Since then he has approved most of the skyscrapers plans and the skyline of the city has changed drastically with the Shard, the Walkie Talkie, the Cheese-grater, the Razor…etc. And currently, more than 200 towers of at least 20 storeys are either under construction or being planned.

In his own party, Mark Field (Conservatives MP for Cities of London and Westminster) is at war against Boris Johnson’s decision to grant planning for a massive development around Waterloo station.

As reported in the FT, former Wandsworth council lead, Sir Edward Lister, now deputy mayor for planning at the Greater London Authority, rejected the suggestion that the GLA had allowed a free-for-all on skyscrapers across the London skyline, saying it permitted tall buildings only in clusters, and only in particular areas, such as Old Street, Nine Elms, Elephant & Castle, London Bridge and along the South Bank. “We’re not going back to the days of the 1960s, of putting up tall buildings any old where.” Only in clusters, really? What about the Ram Brewery?

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

“A record number of London skyscrapers are in the pipeline, prompting campaigners to warn that the capital’s skyline could be ruined by a “wall of glass” as property developers seek to capitalise on foreign investor demand for homes in the capital” wrote the Financial Times on Monday 27th January.

Those are news that we have been reporting in several occasion on this website. Foreign developers see London as a very attractive market for they home clients, with money to invest in the UK capital. Thus, Chinese are buying the Ram Brewery site, and it follows rival Chinese developer Wanda’s announcement to build a 60 storey skyscraper in Nine Elms, (mostly luxury flats with a small portion considered as “affordable”).

While David Cameron, George Osborne and Boris Johnson encourage bigger Chinese investment in Britain, the Parliament as expressed concerns with a  debate about properties being bought by foreigners, last June.

In the FT, Susan Emmett, a director of residential research at estate agency Savills, said that “We need to be building at higher densities to deliver the number of homes London needs. Tall residential blocks help achieve this, particularly near public transport nodes.” But do we need more empty units bought by people for the only purpose of using it as an investment/safe deposit, instead of leaving there? Have a look at Imperial Wharf to see the consequence of such developments.

Can we trust politicians to protect where we live?

During its first campaign in 2008, the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, pledged not to approve such plans if residents express outrage. Six years ago is probably eternity in politicians view and therefore forgettable. Since then he has approved most of the skyscrapers plans and the skyline of the city has changed drastically with the Shard, the Walkie Talkie, the Cheese-grater, the Razor…etc. And currently, more than 200 towers of at least 20 storeys are either under construction or being planned.

In his own party, Mark Field (Conservatives MP for Cities of London and Westminster) is at war against Boris Johnson’s decision to grant planning for a massive development around Waterloo station.

As reported in the FT, former Wandsworth council lead, Sir Edward Lister, now deputy mayor for planning at the Greater London Authority, rejected the suggestion that the GLA had allowed a free-for-all on skyscrapers across the London skyline, saying it permitted tall buildings only in clusters, and only in particular areas, such as Old Street, Nine Elms, Elephant & Castle, London Bridge and along the South Bank. “We’re not going back to the days of the 1960s, of putting up tall buildings any old where.” Only in clusters, really? What about the Ram Brewery?

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Following our comments on Wandsworth Council’s consultation on local”protected” views we have received a response from the officer in charge of the policy document. The draft revised Local Views Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) aims at defining the different types of view that have some local significance and deserve protection within the borough.

In answering our different comments, the officer made the following response highlighted in green. We have added our own comment in red in this article.

You refer to a meeting of the Planning Forum in April 2013 where it was reported that there would be a shorter list of views. The reference to 7 is a drafting error and should be 6. I fully recognise that the change is substantial from the previous draft. This is a result of comments from the GLA, which suggested a more focussed document. In the introduction we state that there are many important views within conservation areas that were identified previously and these will now be set out within the Borough’s Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Strategies.

Although we dispute the necessity of such work with only 6 views, more than half of them subject to changes due to already granted outline planning schemes or schemes under discussion, we also think necessary to see the documentation sent by the GLA which has caused the planners to virtually eliminate all the local views.

I understand your concern that the content of views 3-6 will change as a result of development in Nine Elms. We recognise this in the document but feel it is even more important that these views are there in the SPD to ensure that developers take full cognisance of them if they propose any tall buildings, which impact on Battersea Power Station.

Saying that it ensures that “developers take full cognisance of them if they propose any tall buildings” may imply that they do not pay such attention to the Borough’s Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Strategies, and therefore contradict/undermind the consideration given to the other “important views” as stated in the previous paragraph.

In paragraph 28, we were concern that the draft document said “Where development is proposed in the silhouette of a heritage asset this may cause undue harm“, and not “will”. The officer’s response is:

I note you would prefer to substitute the word ‘will’ for ‘may’ in the context of the impact of a proposal in the silhouette of a heritage asset. We feel that the use of ‘may’ is more appropriate because the visual impact of any particular proposal will depend on the nature of any development. Some proposed developments in the silhouette may not be visible so this allows a judgement to be made in each case.

However saying that it is justified because “some proposed developments in the silhouette may not be visible” is in contradiction with the paragraph saying that it concerns “where development is proposed in the silhouette of a heritage asset“. It seems bizarre to apply a guideline to a building that has no impact as not visible…

Photography and wide angle lens

In paragraph 2.49 of the adopted DMPD reference is made to the fact that wide angle lenses can distort perspective. This is true hence the need for the cautious approach set out in Appendix 1, which is extracted from the Mayor’s guidance on Strategic Views set out in the London View Management Framework (LVMF).

The LVMF states that ‘where a proposal needs to be shown in a broad context choices must be made between using wide angle photography, which may give rise to less natural perspective at the edges of the images or by combining additional images taken from the same position. Where this latter technique has been used AVRs should include additional annotation to indicate how images have been combined’.

The whole purpose of AVRs is to show a proposed development as accurately as possible.

We have already shown that the way the DMPD was worded, using the word “can”, is too vague (as we demonstrated that in all cases it will distort, but for representation of plane surfaces). That was also admitted by a planning officer who considered the policy a bit clumsy.

Therefore, instead of making sure that developers will provide images as the naked eye will see, it will continue to allow AVR using wide angle lenses, not specifically described as such (also LVMF says so already Wandsworth Council has never enforced it), to illustrate proposals.

It is a misunderstanding of AVR to write that their purpose is to show a development as accurately as possible. As explained by experts (Miller Hare) in their methodology, the goal is to provide additional information such as context, number of buildings, etc.

The Local Views SPD will be reported back to the Council early next year along with the results of the public consultation.

Filed under: Planning strategy

Author: Cyril Richert

Mark Field (Conservatives MP for Cities of London and Westminster) shared the concerns of Martin Linton (former Battersea MP) during the debate on tall buildings  at the Parliament in April 2009.

Mark Field is now objecting on the proposal to redevelop the area surrounding Waterloo station on a similar ground, as reported by the Evening Standard:

“We must be mindful to avoid the sorts of planning mistakes from decades past that have blighted particular areas and detracted from the city as a whole. […] we must be careful that in future we get a better balance between the legitimate need for new development and the protection of London’s historic fabric“.

He is rubbished by some of his colleagues who accuse him of “wasting taxpayers’ money” pursuing the matter in the High Court.

An occasion to watch again the video of the debate in the parliament on tall buildings in this article.

Filed under: Planning strategy