3 Culvert Road
Submission to Wandsworth Borough Council
Submitted 30 November 2021
Comment on planning application 2021/5013
Thomas Wilson
Planning Department
Wandsworth Council
London SW18 1DA
Dear Mr. Wilson
3 Culvert Road, 2021/5013
The Battersea Society objects most strongly to this application for a building which is an unneighbourly over-development of the site, to the detriment of views from the Battersea Park, Latchmere Estate and Shaftesbury Park Estate conservation areas and which fails to provide long-term housing for a variety of household sizes.
1. Design and height
The design, height, bulk and massing of the proposal respond poorly to the surrounding context including nearby listed buildings, the buildings to the east along Battersea Park Road and to the three adjacent conservation areas – the Latchmere Estate, Shaftesbury Park Estate and Battersea Park Conservation Areas. It is notable that in approving proposals for the development to the west of this site at 475-491 Battersea Park Road (2011/0185) the Council set out criteria in support of this more modest proposal, few if any of which are met by this application. In our letter of objection to 2016/4188(attached) we stated that:
This proposal is for a building too tall and overbearing for its location and one which fails to meet the requirements of DMS 1, a, b, c, d and o. It has failed to demonstrate that it meets criteria set down under DMS 4 in respect of a building above 5 storeys in height.
These comments remain relevant.
2. Co Living
We are familiar with the concept of Urban or Collective Living and have commented in detail on the Chatfield Road development, now approved, the Haydon Way development, refusal currently being appealed, Access application 2020/4285 and the revised plans for 55 Lombard Road
We are also familiar with Wandsworth’s proposed policy in their Draft Local Plan and with that within the London Plan. We support these in their caution about the growth of such offers and are pleased that Wandsworth Council will generally resist such applications.
The approved application for this site provided 39 residential units of a variety of sizes including 12 affordable units. This is far preferable in supporting Battersea as a community for the longer term, in particular allowing younger people to make their home in Battersea rather than as a short-term home for the relatively affluent while they remain single and unattached.
The most recent Housing Needs Assessment (HNA), December 2020 notes that there are 8,800 people on the Housing Register, that 22,695 affordable dwellings are needed of which 60% (13,724) result from people in over-crowded dwellings – which suggests strongly that studio and 1-bedroom properties are not the answer, let alone highly priced urban living spaces. Further extracts from the report were included in our response to the consultation on these proposals – attached.
3. Affordable Housing
We cannot understand how a developer can present a scheme which has apparently been designed to be viable only when no affordable housing is offered. Surely such a proposal should be deemed invalid given that it fails to take note of the London Plan requirement for a contribution equivalent to 35% - or 50% if the development is on public land. This latter may not now be relevant as while this land was a public asset we think it is now in the private ownership of Harris Academy. The proposal that a sports hall will be provided is irrelevant as the previous scheme was only consented on the understanding a sports hall would be provided and additionally 12 affordable units were provided.
4. Statement of Community Involvement
We are grateful to the developers for allowing us to view the proposals at consultation stage and see that they note our objection to the height but not to our objection to the co-living proposals. Our full comments are attached. While it is clear from the data that only 8 people responded we do object to the use of percentages within the narrative.
While it is disappointing that the site has remained behind hoardings this is infinitely preferable to the Council approving this application. We trust that the needs of the many social housing tenants and leasehold owners in the buildings surrounding this site and the damage such an intrusive building would do to the setting of the surrounding Conservation Areas will result in the Planning Applications Committee refusing this application.
As is clear, we very much hope that this application will not be approved but should it be, it is essential that the building is configured in such a way that the recommendation of the Design Review Panel that ‘the design of the building should be sufficiently robust to enable the floorplan to be altered to allow for larger flats’ – in other words not bed sitting rooms.
Yours sincerely
Chair, Planning Committee, Battersea Society