The Battersea Society: Planning Application submission Welcome to the Battersea Society website


Planning Submission


Submission to Wandsworth Borough Council
Added on: 11 October 2014 at 11:04:02

Covent Garden Market Authority, 2014/2810

This letter is sent in response to revised information presented by the applicant.  It does not replace our comments on the original details sent in our letter dated 31 July and should be read in conjunction with that letter.


We wish to maintain our objection to the height of building N8 and to the lack of detailed designs for the two neighbouring buildings.  The Consented Scheme, shown in the Skyline Composition on p.2 section 3.1 of the Northern Site Addendum, has clearly been designed to provide a coherent grouping alongside the other consented buildings within the area.  We assume that this was the result of detailed discussions with the architects and developers on neighbouring sites.  It appears to us to provide a broadly satisfactory skyline – given the planning policies for height for this area.  The new proposal fails to match this but rather gives the effect of a number of separate tall buildings individually impacting on the skyline.


In the addendum report 3.17 p.14 it is stated that

 “.. The Design Code champions varying the building expression to achieve a certain level of individuality yet with consistency as a whole to ensure design character cohesion.  The Design Code is meant as a guide for others to debate the proposals for Towers N9 and N10, which would need to undergo the same rigor as the discourse surrounding Tower N8 design through this application process.”

In as much as we understand this, it appears to bind nobody to anything and underlines the concerns we and CABE expressed about the lack of detailed design for the group of three buildings.

Basement Car Parks:  It appears that negotiations for a shared ramp between the Northern Site and One Nine Elms have not yet been successful and therefore amendmentsinclude a proposal for separate but adjoining ramps as a fallback in case agreement to a shared ramp proves impossible.    


Separate ramps would lead to a considerable narrowing of the pedestrian link from the Linear Park to the river.  Such a fallback position should not be provided because it would reduce the pressure on the parties to reach agreement and be detrimental to pedestrian links. 


Affordable Housing:  In the addendum report 3.9 on p.12 the level of 15% is somewhat grudgingly agreed to but only with the proviso that this is not subject to any review mechanism.  We strongly object to this proviso. 


Linear Park:  We understand that CGMA have appointed the same contractor as that being used by neighbouring sites.  This is to be applauded as a shared design code, including the palette of materials to be used, is essential. 


Statement of Community Involvement:  We have been disappointed at the amount of community consultation which has taken place, and the lack of detail shown at the exhibitions we have attended.  It would have been helpful for there to have been an exhibition of these latest amendments.  We understand there may have been some local consultation but there appears to have been nothing made known more widely since last year.  We are equally sorry not to have been able to see, and perhaps comment on, the Statement of Community Involvement but it is not yet available on the application website. 


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