80-100 Gwynne Road 2023/4795

The Battersea Society objects to this application which is an unneighbourly over- development of a site in a narrow and heavily trafficked road. We have read with interest the detailed comments from West & Partners and support their views. In particular we share their concern regarding: the impact of a second tall building on views of the existing marker building to the west; the lack of off-street servicing and delivery space; effect on transport and parking in the area; the extent to which the building covers the site and its proximity to the next door building and poor standards of accommodation, particularly in regard to daylight levels.

Parking and landscaping

It appears that the developer is reliant on the public highway for all parking and deliveries together with landscaping other than that within the building. The illustration on page 53 of the Design and Access Statement (DAS) shows how narrow Gwynne Road but not how heavily trafficked it often is. It is essential that any development on this site provides off-street parking for delivery, servicing and disabled parking.

Transport

It is sad that plans for a Cremorne foot and cycle bridge remain in limbo and we can only endorse all that West and Partners write about the pressure on existing transport, not least the 170.

Housing Standards and Housing Mix

We assume that the plans do meet the minimum standards but nonetheless the impression we have is of too many small apartments crammed into the building with many likely to be dark and gloomy. It is notable that with the exception of the single bedrooms all two-person bedrooms show an indicative double bed. This assumes either co-habiting adults or perhaps a return to children sharing a bed. There is little spare space and we can only hope the sound-proofing between rooms is of a high standard if the flats are actually lived in by the numbers given.

Of the 29 affordable flats proposed 14 are single bedroom and 36 of a total of 90 units are single beds. This lack of family housing is to be deplored and does nothing to contribute to Battersea being a home for a community of people of all ages and circumstances.

Design Review Panel

It was disappointing that this letter was not made available on the application site until 21 March but the applicant would have had seen it well before preparing the DAS. We may be mistaken but cannot see that the concerns expressed have been fully acknowledged within the DAS. In particular we note that the proposed building would be a mere 1m from the adjoining site.

Conclusion

This is an unsatisfactory proposal which fails to respect its neighbours and is reliant on its use of the public realm rather than contributing to it. We trust that the developers will think again and, should they fail, that the application be rejected.