Park being replaced with a block of flats? Post Reply

[windmill26]

They issue a parking permit to any resident. This means that when a house is converted into three flats the number of cars with parking permits likely increases.

I don't know what they do with conversions of Victorian/older properties that have already been built and I can imagine in these circumstances they will issue passes to all residents, if the property is subsequently converted into flats.

However for new builds this isn't always the case. There is a new build in Balham opposite the storage centre by Chestnut Grove. We popped in to ask about buying one as a BTL but one interesting point is that they don't come with permits and permits can't be issued for them, that was part of the planning consent. I was surprised but the developers were adamant this was the case. Its one reason they're selling parking spaces for a fortune but it did strike me as odd that one was buying a flat without the chance to ever park on the road (in controlled hours).

This is correct,with newly built apartments you can't obtain a parking permit from the council to park in the street.A lot of developers now build a car-park as part of the property and you generally get a parking space included in the price of the apartment.Years ago who was buying apartments in London were mainly singles or couples,now you also have families so a car is welcome when you have kids.

[ChristopherP]

Still time to sign a new petition to take to the Council who review the decision this week (w/c 12 Dec)
Every little helps!
https://www.change.org/p/wandsworth-bor ... ybridge-rd

[Wandsworth Council]

This is a very small, vacant and unused former WW2 bombsite, which has in the past had temporary homes built on it and more recently has been a haven for anti social behaviour like street drinking and also a magnet for litter and flytips.

It’s a small dead end space covered in concrete not grass and no one could ever reasonably describe it as a park or green oasis.

[papinian]

Given that this planning issue is still going through the planning process it seems to me to be highly inappropriate for Wandsworth Council to be commented in the above manner on this thread.

I am not a planning law expert, but perhaps those who are could comment.

[cynic]

Ok so the idea that any child would like to use this 'park' in the state of repair that Wandsworth Council have chosen to allow it to to fall into is of course laughable. The question is Wandsworth Council why did YOU allow this to happen?

Wandsworth Council similarly allowed a site on Forthbridge Road, an old caretakers house next to the Belleville school site, to become so badly maintained it had squatters (very nicely behaved actually) and casual break-ins ( not so nice). It became such a problem area that local residents actually became keen for the site to be redeveloped.
It was eventually redeveloped into terraced houses in keeping with those along side the site.
It was sold for £970,000 and the properties built on it were then sold for over £4m some 18months later....great price you got there Wandsworth!

The actual issue of objection here is that the proposed large block of flats is quite out of keeping with other properties on the street (and the knock-on effect on resources e.g. Parking spaces)

Papinan makes a great point. It is appropriate for WC to be commenting in clear support of a planning application for which it is the Planning Authority? I do hope WC promptly answer this question?

[krystyna]

On 14 December 2016 Wandsworth Council's Planning Committee considered application no 2016/5528. Mr James Cousins our local councillor gave a 5 minute speech outlining residents' objections to the application and mentioning that this land was never built on because it was most probably a memorial garden. He handed out copies of our petition. Then the Committee had their fairly short debate. I witnessed the committee be strongly opposed to the proposed building- one member said "it (the building) would stick out like a sore thumb". They also thought the development failed to provide adequate amenity space. Please see decision notice:

https://planning.wandsworth.gov.uk/WAM/ ... ageCount=1

So thank you to everyone who wrote to the Council giving their views. I got the impression, whilst waiting for our application to be discussed that evening, that other developments are passed even when there is strong local opposition - so we were lucky.

Just two weeks ago I had a colourful A4 leaflet through my door from a PR firm representing Languard Investments informing neighbours that Languard have revised their plans for the site by setting back the top floor and removing the balconies. I am not sure if Langard are allowed to have another go at seeking planning permission? It is not clear whether Wandsworth Council have actually sold this land but as people have noticed they are putting out bad press about the state of the park when that it entirely down to the Council's lack of maintenance.

[rooting4tooting]

If they are getting rid of the balconies, that makes a huge difference... nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnoT.
This space, so small, could be a perfect toddler playground. We have one in our street built by the developers as part of a section 106 agreement.
I would register the ground as a "green". I know its not very green but it is local amenity, perhaps also try to get the tree a "tree preservation order" I'm sure you all love and admire the tree...
make it awkward and make it quick.

[krystyna]

The Planning Committee of Wandsworth Council refused planning permission on 14 December 2016 for a block of flats to be built on the site of the Gowrie Road Pocket Park (2017/5528) - see decision notice -

https://planning.wandsworth.gov.uk/WAM/ ... ageCount=1

Their refusal was based firstly on the size of the building - it was described as "over prominent and incongruous" and secondly by reason of failure to provide adequate amenity space. Not to be put off by this refusal the developer has come back to the Council with a fresh application - 2017/0631 which is in essence the first application but with modifications. The top floor has been set back to lessen the impression of height and this has created two 10 sq metre terraces on the roof. The balconies have been removed and now 2 x 2-bedroom flats and 2 x 1-bedroom flats are proposed instead of 3 x 2-bedroom flats and 2 x 1-bedroom flats.

Overall the building is still the same number of floors as before - basement, ground, first and second. It still "sticks out like a sore thumb" as one Committee member commented. It still overshadows the bungalows at nos 1, 3 and 5 Gowrie Road. In Ian Smith's previous recommendation report on 2017/5528 (point 4.2) he wrote that the obscured windows on the western elevation would allow "future development". Is he thinking those bungalows might one day be replaced with another block of flats? The new top floor terraces will overlook properties in Gowrie and Taybridge Road and might cause privacy problems.

Previously the refuse issue was not properly addressed. The Council does not service wheelie bins of less than 600 litres, yet the development made provision for only 360 litres size bins for refuse and recycling. The extra spaces for parking issue did not seem to make much of an impression on the planning committee, and neither did the disruption caused by building works, if this development goes ahead.

Wandsworth Council have done their very best to label this pocket park with its magnificant sycamore tree, cotoneasters, various shrubs and bird population as being of no benefit to the community - they obviously do not appreciate nature. The reason this pocket park might look a bit run down is due to lack of maintenance by the Council. Their street cleaning in this, the busiest part of Taybridge Road - from Gowrie to Lavender Hill also leaves a lot to be desired and the state of the paving along this stretch of the road is dire. So the pocket park is not alone in being neglected.

We have only been given a little over two weeks to make comments on the application: by email (to planning@wandsworth.gov.uk) or letter or via the website http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk and then clicking on the "I want to...View a planning application" link. Comments are invited by 08 March 2017 quoting application 2017/0631. The planning officer dealing with this case is again Mr Ian Smith who can answer any questions on 020 8871 8414

This little park has been in pubic use for 56 years since 1961. Please help to keep it open for future generations to use.

[Enteacher61]

The first thing you need to do is ensure that you get at least 3 objections so that the new application also gets referred to the planning applications committee and not dealt with by the planning department under delegated powers. If WBC sold the land to a developer they are clearly committed to its redevelopment. If you are committed to opposing any redevelopment of this space I suggest you check whether WBC made the disposal of the open space legally and check whether the purchase was or is conditional upon the grant of planning permission. It might be worth checking the 1967 Greater London Parks and Open Spaces Provisional Order (otherwise known as the Long Act) so see whether or not this space was or should have been covered by this legislation. You may need to submit requests under the freedom of information act to understand the full story or check the various minutes of the Housing and Commumity Services Committee that dealt with the disposal of the space.

[krystyna]

There is a high probability that 'Gowrie Road Pocket Park' was set aside and designed as a Memorial Park for Harry Bruce Remington and Alice Emily Remington both of 26 Taybridge Road who were killed by a bomb on 23 September 1940. The 'public park' layout was introduced in planning application 1960/11092 which has been requested from Wandsworth - only available on microfiche which takes 10 days apparently.

[krystyna]

It has been pointed out by a resident that the new application 2017/0631 to build a block of flats on the Gowrie Road pocket park site has not had the requisite advisory notice attached to the nearest lampost on the corner of Gowrie and Taybridge Road. This WBC notice should be publically displayed inviting residents to make comments to the Planning Department by 08 March 2017.

Any comments should primarily address what is known as 'Material Considerations'. These are the Material Considerations which can be included (but are not limited to):

* Overlooking/loss of privacy - 2 large 10 sq metre terraces on the second floor are now proposed
* Loss of light or overshadowing - will affect neighbours particularly in bungalows nos 1,3 and 5 Gowrie Road
* Parking - already very difficult to find parking spaces. Cars will be displaced from anywhere near the vicinity of the site
* Highway safety - No risk assessment done to address access by HGV's to this corner site on already very busy narrow roads
* Traffic - there will be a huge increase in daily lorry movements to the site and residents will find it difficult to park cars
* Noise - tree felling and then excavation for basement and foundations + lorry movements, skip collections = a lot of noise
* Layout and density of building - building is very bulky in size. It would be tower over neighbouring properties
* Design, appearance and materials - a very modern building totally out of place in a street of mainly Victorian terraces
* Government policy
* Disabled persons' access - stairs in all the flats make them totally unsuitable for any disabed person to inhabite
* Proposals in the Development Plan
* Previous planning decisions (including appeal decisions) - the previous plan 2016/5528 was rejected on 14 Dec 2016
* Nature conservation - the large sycamore tree, 3 cotoneasters and various shrubs - habitat for bird & insects would vanish
* Loss of a public amenity - this park has been in public use since 1961 but neglected by WBC over the years
* Historical importance - there is some thought that this area was set aside as a memorial garden for those neighbours killed by a bomb on 23 September 1940. That is why the site was not built on when the bungalows 1,3 & 5 In Gowrie Road and 20-28 Taybridge Road were built in the early sixties.

Apparently the "right to a view" and "property values" are not matters which can be taken into consideration.

Your comments really do make a difference to the planning decision.

Please send your comments by email via the website http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk and then clicking on the "I want to...View a planning application" link followed by application number 2017/0631 and then clicking on "View associated application documents and make online comments". We have till 08 March to make comments. The planning officer dealing with this case is again Mr Ian Smith who can answer any questions on 020 8871 8414

[Enteacher61]

Krystyna
You write that your comments really do matter. Having taken the lead on opposition to a planning application in the middle of Wandsworth common my experience is that if the council is committed to the development then, sadly, your comments probably won't actually matter. We had 70 objections, including 3 from representative community groups to an application that had no supporting comments. The planning applications committee ultimately ignored them all and went with the planning officer's recommendation to approve. Once the PAC has approved an application the only way to challenge further is through a Judicial Review in the courts which is expensive.
Evidence suggests that it is very rare for the WBC PAC to go against the planning officer's overall approve/reject recommendation whatever the objections received. In your case Mr Smith, and the hierarchy above him, will be key. If, as appears, you are committed to opposing any development on this site, I would recommend you focus upon the loss of public amenity and check the legal basis and terms of the disposal of the site by the council. This won't necessarily come under the remit of thei planners / PAC who can grant permission even if the site was illegally disposed of. You should write to the Director of Finance, use an FOI request and/or locate the relevant minutes/decision notice relating to the disposal. You can then check the circumstances of the disposal and whether or not the appropriate procedures were followed by officers and councillors.
Personally I have been appalled by WBC and their asset management team's repeated efforts to realise commercial opportunities from the open spaces in the borough, that they are entrusted with on our behalf, especially when they do so despite significant opposition from borough residents. Formula E in Battersea park was one such example, Neals Lodge on Wandsworth Common is another and it would seem Pocket park is perhaps another. The irony of course is that WBC is now leading the opposition to Lambeth endeavouring to do likewise on Clapham Common.
Pocket park is not an issue of specific interest to me but I am happy to offer any help and advice I can based upon my recent, and ongoing, experience of challenging WBC, as they attempt to mark their own homework in preference to listening to legitimate feedback from their constituents. Best of luck and get in touch if you think I can help.

[krystyna]

Enteacher61,

I feel comments to the WBC Planning website are important and really do matter :

I was at the Planning Application Committee meeting on 14 December 2016 when Councillor James Cousins spoke on behalf of residents for the allotted 5 minutes against planning application 2016/5528, the predecessor of 2017/0631. He also handed out the petition. Then the PAC had their (short) discussion. Mention was made of the many objection letters (80)and one member said the development would “stick out like a sore thumb. Then they overwhelmingly voted to refuse the application, which I understand is unusual when the Planning Officer (Ian Smith) had written a report in favour of the application. Their refusal of permission letter (19 Dec ) states:

“The proposal, by reason of its excessive scale and massing, would be an over prominent and incongruous feature within the streetscene of the location resulting in unacceptable harm to its established spatial character.......” and secondly,

“The proposal, by reason of its failure to provide adequate dedicated amenity space, harmfully reduces opportunities to improve the health and well-being of its future occupiers while failing to mitigate the environmental impacts of development in general....”

Now the developer, Languard, have made some slight changes to the design – setting back the top floor to make it appear less high, although the building is still the same overall height, and in the process two new highly visible 10 sq metre terraces have been created on the top floor. They have also got rid of the balconies and rearranged rooms internally and in the process got rid of one flat. They have submitted a new application 2017/0631 incorporating these changes.

The Design and Access Statement (1 Feb 2017) which accompanied this application, unsigned, but written I believe by someone at Languard’s agency Avis Appleton states:

“Following the issue of the refusal notice a revised scheme was prepared. This scheme aimed to address the issues raised not only in the notice but also in the letters of objection that had been submitted” and

“Prior to submitting this application the scheme was presented at a meeting attended by Councillors Senior and Cook, also in attendance was Mr Granger East Area Manager of the planning department. The outcome of this meeting, I believe, was that the revised scheme had addressed the concerns raised in the refusal notice.”

Presumably Councillors Senior and Cook were at that meeting to represent their constituents and not the Council and Councillor Senior must have borne in mind his personal objection comment to the scheme as it appeared on the Planning Website dated 2 November 2016:

“Comment Type: Object to Proposal Comment: The design of this application is overbearing, oppressive and at odds with the surviving Victorian street scheme. It should be redesigned to be more in sympathy with the locality. I am also concerned that there is no on site parking, as local parking is crowded during the week. If a scheme is to be approved, it should be excluded from the CPZ”.

Just a thought on the last sentence – how does Councillor Senior think that exclusion from the CPZ would prevent anyone parking after 5.30 pm and all weekend when parking is free for all?

With Councillors having had their input on the slightly revised scheme I feel it is now especially important that residents should also have the opportunity to make their opinions known by submitting comments.

WBC have failed to put up a the required site notice giving 21 days’ notice and asking for comments so Nappy Valley is one way of alerting residents that a fresh application has been made. Already 20 objections have been submitted to the Planning website and we have till 8 March to make our opinions known.

I believe that Wandsworth Council still own the site because the Design & Access Statement (1 Feb 2017) states “the plot of land to which this application relates has been put up for sale by the Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Wandsworth.” Without planning permission the sale of the land is not an attractive proposition.

[Enteacher61]

Krystyna
The fact that WBC owns the site and wants to realise value from it, which is dependent upon the grant of planning permission, does not bode well, as it is within their gift to grant that permission. Clearly the council has a conflict of interest in this matter. However the shameless posting by WBC Communications department, earlier on in this thread, of a photograph of the park in the decayed state to which they have allowed it to deteriorate, together with a comment questioning its description and viability as a park or open space, speaks volumes about their intentions - and integrity in the matter.
As you note it is indeed rare that the PAC goes against the planner's recommendation but the prospective developer's new application now looks like the PAC has paid lip service to your objections before readying themselves to approve the revised scheme, which they will doubtless assert has addressed the concerns raised by residents with the original application. You may even find a token councillor from your ward voting against the revisions at the next PAC - but sadly he/she will fail to carry enough of his/her colleagues to derail the Asset Management teams enthusiasm to realise the site's value.
There is a presumption, nationally and locally, in favour of development, which on an "urban infill" it may be possible to delay but ultimately hard to prevent. I suspect preserving the status of the space as an amenity in the face of WBC's egregious disposition will be challenging, unless you can find a restrictive covenant related to the land or something similar. I would recommend consulting a property specialist and getting hold of a copy of the deeds or other somesuch - perhaps from the Land registry? You could also explore the possibility of applying to get the space registered as an "Asset of Community Value" ?

[ChristopherP]

Dear fellow NappyValleyNET reader,

I would also like to encourage you to object to the planning application for a development on the green space at the corner of Gowrie and Taybridge Roads.

This takes less than a minute and should be done by 07 March, you only need a couple of sentences detailing why you object, perhaps on grounds of scale and mass of the development, the lack of parking provision or the removal of an existing open space.

Link to object here:
https://planning.wandsworth.gov.uk/WAM/ ... =2017/0631

Whilst the site is clearly in need of some TLC I, and many others, believe it would be far more beneficial to local residents as an open space, perhaps a small play area, than a block of five flats which dwarf the immediate surrounding buildings.

Note a previous application, which was very similar, was rejected last December due excessive scale and massing and an over prominent and incongruous feature within the local streetscene; so there is precedence to reject based on this objection.

Your objection counts!