3 Culvert Road, Balance Out Living
Added on: 6 September 2021
Consultation response from the Battersea Society
Co-Living
The Battersea Society cannot support these proposals to replace 39 residential units with co-living space. Rather than ‘penthouse flats’ the original proposals provided 27 market flats and, even more importantly, 12 affordable flats.
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. The following paragraphs from the HNA sum up the position:
“9.30 Whilst it is recognised that shared accommodation can be an increasingly valuable form of accommodation, there is an acute need for self-contained residential dwellings, and in particular for affordable rented and Affordable Home Ownership (AHO) dwellings. In the event housing capacity restricts LBW to meet its objectively assessed housing need or affordable housing need, it is suggested that LBW consider conventional forms of housing ahead of co-living developments.
9.31 It is also recognised that the private space provided by co-living schemes consists solely of bedrooms meaning that it does not cater for the needs of residents who wish to continue to live within the borough, but rather for a more transient occupier. Taking into account that LBW already has one of the most mobile populations in England (see Table 23), there is a risk that the provision of co-living accommodation would intensify this issue further. As such, it would not support the creation of mixed and balanced communities in these areas.”
Building on this, the Draft Local plan policy LP31C states that shared living accommodation
“…will only be supported where it is clearly demonstrated that:
such development meets all of the criteria set out in the emerging London Plan Policy H16;
it can be clearly demonstrated that there is an identified local need for the type of accommodation proposed;
it would not lead to an overconcentration of single-person accommodation at the neighbourhood level;
it can be clearly demonstrated that the site is not suitable for development for conventional units.”
We consider that these proposals do not satisfy these criteria.
We are sure that individuals at Terrapin will be aware of Wandsworth Council’s housing needs and their emerging policy on co-living and can advise their client on these.
Facilities Offered
This area of Battersea Park Road is well provided with cafes and licenced premises and the proposed addition could take much needed business away from these. The new sports hall, which is a condition of development, will offer community facilities when not needed by the school. The Latchmere Leisure Centre is nearby.
There does not appear to us to be a need for added facilities.
Design
The Society objected to the original design and continues to oppose this excessive height. It would be visible from Battersea Park, Latchmere and Shaftesbury Conservation areas, and to the detriment of all three. We are attaching a copy of our objections to 2016/4188 for reference.
3 Culvert Road, 2016/4188
In preparing the Battersea Society’s objection to this application we have looked at Wandsworth Council’s committee report on the development to the west of this site, at 475-491 Battersea Park Road. The overbearing proposals for 3 Culvert Road meet few, if any, of the criteria the council used in recommending this more modest proposal, 2011/0185, for approval.
Specifically: 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 two adjacent conservation areas – the Latchmere Estate and Battersea Park Conservation Areas.
Given this context we cannot agree that the area suffers from a poor and incoherent streetscape and poor urban character.
It is unneighbourly in relation to the lower developments of Merryfield Court, Lloyd Court and Challis House. It fails to recognise that Culvert Road is not, as stated in the application papers, a cul-de-sac but a narrow, heavily trafficked route through to both the industrial estate at the junction of Culvert Road and Sheepcote Lane and a minor rat run between the Latchmere Road and Battersea Park Road.
We note that justification for the acknowledged loss of daylight and sunlight to Merryfield Court is that the ‘very good levels of daylight’ they receive is ‘uncommon in an urban environment’. In other words, residents have been luckier than they deserve so shouldn’t complain that this new building will reduce daylight to their flats.
It will also be visible from the Shaftesbury Park Estate Conservation Area to the south.
The application sets out in support of the height both the Castlemaine tower and, to the east, the Doddington estate. This 20 storey social housing development is part of ‘a late example of the punchy high-density architecture of the 1960s’*. It would not meet current planning policies and in any case we are being asked to assess a commercial development on land formerly in public ownership which provides just 12 social housing units, 6 each of 1 and 2 bedrooms, rather than a large quantity of social housing. The site location overview on page 7 of the Design and Access Statement clearly shows that Castlemaine is an anachronism within the streetscape, while the graphic on page 32 shows how the proposed height at 3 Culvert Road is overbearing in relation to its neighbours.
It would make more sense if the proposed new building were to be sited in Dagnall Street on land currently earmarked for the Sports Hall, was of a similar height to existing blocks in that street and set within the context of the Doddington to the north and east, much of which is set well back from Battersea Park Road.
The main argument for the addition of a tall building at this site is that a Sports Hall will be provided for the Harris Academy. Yet there are few plans set down for this and no commitment as to timing. This is noted by the Design Review Panel who advise that the design of the sports hall to the Harris Academy should be submitted at the same time as the tower to emphasise the link between the two. This has not been done.
It is a further matter of concern that the Design Review Panel report includes concerns that ‘details of the building are still evolving [and] they do need to push harder to achieve exemplary architectural quality and sustainability’. They ‘strongly advise’ the Council to ensure that the architectural quality of the tower and the public benefits that it will deliver (our emphasis) are sealed in to any planning permission’.
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. It lacks certainty in relation to both architectural quality and public benefit.
This application in its current form should be rejected and the developer required to think again about the location of residential and sports hall buildings and to develop plans for the development of both within the same time frame.
Yours sincerely
Chair, Planning Committee, Battersea Society
*Survey of London, volume 50 p.178-179
In conclusion, while we do not like the consented scheme, its provision of housing is preferable to these proposals.
