Hazel Court, Haydon Way SW11 1YF: 2020/2560
Submission to Wandsworth Borough Council
Added on: 10 September 2020 at 14:04:36
The Battersea Society objects to this application, which proposes to create a building considerably larger than the one to which the Council refused permission in September 2017 (2017/2041).
As the Design Review Panel has noted, the building now proposed is one storey higher than that refused permission in 2017, and it would be significantly higher than all the buildings in the vicinity, including the St John’s Therapy Centre, and Haydon House. Moreover, the GIA is 40% larger than the rejected scheme. These increases in scale and massing result in over-development of what is a highly-constrained site, and give rise to problems of overlooking and privacy, as well as loss of sunlight, daylight and amenity for neighbouring properties. We support the many objections made on these grounds; and we are far from convinced by the consultant’s report that seeks to dismiss their concerns.
We object to the lack of affordable living units, and we have strong reservations too about the size of the 159 co-living units proposed; about the high proportion of single-aspect north-facing units (exacerbated by the perverse orientation of the building); about the low ratio of kitchens to units; and about the poor provision of amenity space. Conversely, we are concerned also about the proposed use of the sixth floor for leisure purposes, which will result in nuisance and disturbance to adjoining residents.
This co-living development is one of several currently approved or applied for within Battersea and we look forward to seeing the Council’s policy on this type of development when Draft Local Plan documentation is published.
Finally, we are concerned about transport and parking arrangements. A densely-packed building of this size will generate a considerable amount of traffic, and intensify the current difficulties in Haydon Way and at the junction with St John’s Hill. Very limited space is provided for the significant number of commercial vehicles needed to service such a building, or for visitor parking.
The claim in the Planning Statement that the proposal will not adversely affect adjoining properties is simply false: the effects on neighbours will be severe in many different ways. The features of the proposal we have highlighted are incompatible with the Council’s planning policies, and the grounds on which the 2017 application was refused still apply, indeed a fortiori to this application. Hence we trust that the application will be rejected.
You can see full details of this application and other comments, or to make your own views known by copying 2020/2560 and pasting it into the box you will find here
