The Battersea Society: Planning Applications (archive)


Planning Applications Archive

The Society comments on most major planning applications within Battersea, the most recent are listed below. The most recent comments can be found here. We also comment on planning consultations, you can find those here. Let us know about any applications which concern you at planning@batterseasociety.org.uk.

Our quarterly newsletter Battersea Matters always includes a roundup of planning news and there are often other articles about issues relating to the built environment, transport etc. You can find the latest edition here.

Please note: the Battersea Society cannot provide specific planning advice and you should always seek professional assistance with any planning issues. You may also like to look at our Planning Resources page for general information about the planning process.


All pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Submission to Wandsworth Borough Council
Added on: 3 August 2015 at 08:33:39

The Alchemist 2015/2762

The Battersea Society objects to the request for retrospective approval for demolition of the Alchemist public house.  We are delighted to see that Wandsworth Council have refused the application.


We trust that the rebuilding will not include insensitive additions to the frontage. These would be to the detriment of the streetscape within the St. John’s Hill Conservation Area.


To see full details of this application and other comments, or to make your own views known please click here


Added on: 25 April 2015 at 17:46:37

Housing SPD - Basements Draft Changes

Comments from the Planning Committee of the Battersea Society 


Introduction


The Committee welcomes the introduction of these revised guidelines designed to ensure that, where basements are permitted, these are built to a high quality and without undue disturbance to neighbours and to the public realm.


Our main concern is that this draft is not yet clearly set out.  With the wealth of material being provided the document needs to help the reader through.  Without this the danger is that good advice is overlooked or that it will prove hard to look up specific topics.  Because this is a form of development that is a major issue for neighbours, it warrants separate free standing advice rather than the guidance forming part of the Housing SPD (Supplementary Planning Document). This would help give its contents greater strength and clarity of presentation as opposed to it being part of the broader Housing SPD. 


Secondly we would have liked some statement of Wandsworth Council’s policy on basement extensions.  Is this something which will generally be approved providing the guidance set out in this document is followed?  Does the Council have concerns about the danger to property in the case of older housing stock which may not have robust foundations?  Are there examples of bad practice to be cited as a caution against too hasty a decision to excavate?


We welcome the advice given to neighbours of those proposing excavation.  The potential excavator should be reminded of the need to consult with neighbours – perhaps as an addition to 4.32


Clarity of Presentation


Overall consideration should be given to breaking up paragraphs where they cover a whole number of topics.  In some cases it might be clearer to introduce a list of topics as bulleted points rather than setting them down in paragraph form.  The Overview is in fact a list of contents and should include page numbers. 


 4.27:  This appears to repeat the overview and may not be necessary.  This could be where a short statement of WBC policy is inserted.  Or the paragraph could be omitted and the section start with current paragraph 4.28


4.28. This is a clearer statement of the purpose of the document.  It could be split into two with a second paragraph starting at the sentence:   “If your property is in a conservation area …”.  This has the merit of emphasising the need to consider Conservation Area guidelines.


Sections B and C


The order of these should be reversed.  Section B is all about what the property owner should do once they have decided on a basement extension.  Section C should come first because it sets out what should be thought about before deciding on a basement.


Submission to Wandsworth Borough Council
Added on: 7 October 2014 at 13:43:12

Battersea Park East - 2014/4665

The Battersea Society welcomes many aspects of this scheme for redeveloping St Mary’s Roman Catholic Primary School and Patcham Terrace, including in particular the provision of a new and larger school; creation of a pedestrian link between Battersea Park and Queenstown Road Stations and between Queenstown Road and Lockington Road and the creation of a new square opposite Battersea Park Station.



However we object most strongly to the 16 storey height of building 01 shown on the back cover of the consultation leaflet and in section 2.2.7 of the Design and Access Statement. 



These visuals show the tower looming over the surrounding buildings and dominating the streetscape west along Battersea Park Road.  Rather than providing a gateway to the Nine Elms opportunity area it serves to extend the area forward into the Park Town Conservation Area and the surrounding area in a wholly inappropriate manner.  We are surprised at the emphasis given to the views from a speeding railway carriage of this and other buildings on the site as opposed to the impact on residents and others seeing the building from ground level.



The height runs counter to Council policies as set out in the SSAD for this area (submission version March 2014 and earlier).  This states that:  “tall buildings are likely to be inappropriate” (p.30). It may fail to protect the sensitive focal point of Battersea Power Station and it definitely runs counter to the need to “enhance the character of the [Park Town] Conservation Area and take into account the adjoining Victorian building at 177-179 Battersea Park Road (p.89)”. While we are aware that some developers see Wandsworth Council policies as ‘hurdles to be overcome’ we hope that this is not generally the case.



The design of building 01, with strident vertical elements and a proposal for very pale fascia materials is over-dominant and antipathetic to the local Victorian vernacular.  We acknowledge that this may possibly bring some reflected light into the lower areas but this is not sufficient justification for a design which so compromises the surrounding Conservation Area.



We note also that proposed buildings 5 & 6  also breach policies set out in the SSAD and are in conflict with Council policy DMS4.



The proposed brickwork of the lower residential blocks to the east and south of the existing buildings is more thoughtful of its adjoining buildings.  The policy of bookending these buildings with a modern design is not of itself objectionable. 



However we do object most strongly to the design of building 9.  Buildings 9 and 10 are within the Park Town Conservation Area.  The SSAD attaches particular value to the group of existing structures at this point and to their settings.  Building 9 should therefore be much more sympathetic, in its design and materials as well as its roofline and bulk, to the original buildings of the Park Town estate, here in the form of the gateway building 179 Battersea Park Road.  Similar considerations apply in relation to 177 Battersea Park Road and building 10, though that would not be so intrusive.  The proposal to bring the building line forward not only emphasises the dominating effect of building 9 but narrows the footway at a very heavily used pedestrian crossing on a heavily trafficked road.



We note that the 15% affordable housing is proposed as ‘intermediate’ and we question the desirability of this as opposed to shared ownership or, unlikely as this might be, social rented housing.



Overall there is so much to commend this scheme that we hope that the architect and developer can work with Wandsworth Council to modify this scheme to one which respects and conforms with Council policies.  These are designed, quite properly, to protect both the Conservation area under its care and the built environment in the surrounding area and we urge the Council not to allow a breach of these policies.


To see full details of this application and other comments, or to make your own views known please click here
Pages
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22