55-59 Lombard Road
Added on: 11 August 2021
Response from the Battersea Society
1. The following response follows the format of the online questionnaire in narrative form. It has been prepared by the Planning Committee of the Battersea Society, the local civic society.
2. 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 and Access application 2020/4285.
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 (2018/3776) provided 168 residential units of a variety of sizes including 60 affordable and intermediate. 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. 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.”
3. Not applicable.
4 and 5. These seem to us to be leading questions. While we are aware of the problems of private renting these are more likely to affect those in housing need and families rather than single people able to afford £1,000+ a month for a shared living space. As stated elsewhere in the HNA, shared living costs do not help individuals save for their own home.
6. As is clear, we strongly oppose this proposal for purpose built accommodation for single renters.
Design: We strongly support the principle of high quality design and appearance. See below for comments on this particular proposal.
Co-working Space: We are aware of the addition of significant amounts of co-working space within Nine Elms, in particular within the emerging Technology Quarter. It is for the Council to assess the need for additional provision but given the Chatfield Road development we think it may not be needed in this location.
Food store and cafe: We are not aware of a need for further provision in a locality close to Battersea High Street, Battersea Square and Falcon Road – and a short distance from Clapham Junction.
Public Realm: We strongly support the provision of public realm which is attractive and safe. In particular we support proposals which retain mature trees and which provide green space around a building, ideally with enough space for seating areas as is the case with 101 Prince of Wales Drive.
7 and 8. New Design: No.
Greystar are making proposals to changes to the development, which we believe do not enhance the proposal, but rather make the tower even more stark and prominent than the previous proposal, where a step down approach had been proposed which suited the lower buildings on York Road. We objected to the height of the consented scheme and object now to the proposal to increase the height. The two screen shots below show the existing permission and the proposal which in our view does not respect the existing buildings on York Road.
9. e. Strongly object.
10. We very much appreciated the time the Greystar team spent in briefing us on these proposals and we would have liked to have been appreciative of them. However it seems to us better to be absolutely clear of our views at this early stage and hope that Greystar will think again about this particular proposal.
We were concerned during the briefing that no mention was made of the proximity of the Chatfield Road development, nor of proposals for the Access Storage site which also contains an element of shared living. We were disappointed that yet again the Travel Plan did not acknowledge the fact that this proposal to add over 500 people to the area did not seem aware that current provision is already, in normal times, overstretched at peak times and that many more developments are approved but yet to be built and occupied.
Consented view looking south-west along York Road.
Proposed view looking south-west along York Road.
We look forward to continuing our dialogue with Greystar on this development.
