Save Balham Bowling Green: Planning Objection

34 posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Oct 2012
Share this post on:

Re: Save Balham Bowling Green: Planning Objection

Postby jorigby » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:01 am


I’m a local resident and Councillor in Earlsfield, for full disclosure.

I also campaign to save our wildlife. This weekend there was a people’s march for wildlife, organised by Chris Packham. We are at crisis point with the threat to losing some of our species forever. Access to nature is vital to our health and mental well being, it is becoming something not available to all. I would encourage people to read ... r-wildlife

It contains some great ideas for how developers can support wildlife in an urban environment. For example, adding in bird boxes to provide nesting for birds as more of our hedges and trees are removed.

I am interested if there has been a bio diversity audit on this site to identity what species will be at risk. Is there someone on here leading the campaign against this development who would be able to contact me on


Post Reply
Posts: 93
Joined: Sep 2018
Share this post on:

Re: Save Balham Bowling Green: Planning Objection

Postby mum_1980 » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:30 pm

I've just spotted this headline, "Green light for townhouse development on Balham Bowls Club site" in a journal of luxury property. The piece says that a 28-unit scheme has been designed to recreate a traditional Victorian square.

Here's the link: ... club-site/

Not surprisingly, I don't have a subscription to this publication...or the budget to be buying luxury properties which sadly those who really need housing don't have either!
Post Reply
Posts: 9
Joined: May 2018
Share this post on:

Re: Save Balham Bowling Green: Planning Objection

Postby dequacivis » Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:43 pm

Dear Jo,
We are sure that you have good intentions, but opposition to this developer could result in "issues" with your Whip.
The actual developer here, is an extremely powerful person/group with complex corporate structures designed to mask its history of destroying neighbourhood assets and communities.
It is well documented on the Internet that there is a large contingent of people who regard them very close to Sadiq Khan.
They own/control all the neighbouring sites, through offshore tax haven structures.
It is a shame that hundreds of hard working tax payers homes are about to be blighted, so that WBC can get £1m of CIL money and profits from the over-development will end up offshore.
The Affordable home provision has also been fudged to look higher that it is.
We observe that the Local Tory Cllrs have made a big display of "getting involved" yet have resisted informing the Residents of their Ward, who the developer actually is.
Perhaps it would be embarrassing for someone to assign a figure to the £millions paid over to WBC over the years by this group, and it might be alluded that the controversy of allowing this excessive development, is now explained. 
The developer/offshore owner provided many "expert" reports, providing the requisite "ticks" to enable WBC to get their CIL and the offshore structure to get away with over double what the previous owner was denied.
We are sure that a very thorough bio diversity Audit has been produced, concluding that it will actually be far more "bio-diversified" once it is all concreted over.
We salute you for your efforts .... if you wish to join the fight to stop it, a good person to speak to regards background would be Siobhain McDonagh MP.
Best of Luck
Post Reply
Posts: 29
Joined: Jun 2014
Share this post on:

Re: Save Balham Bowling Green: Planning Objection

Postby DavidT » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:17 pm

Heard this evening at the Nightingale Ward meeting that a development has been approved on this site.  Sadly the Council totally failed to protect this green space.  As ever the developer's money trumps the will of residents and the myriad planning objections are completely ignored.   The result is not yet on the Planning site itself however:

Council Leader Ravi Govindia even had the gall to suggest that no viable alternatives were put forward.  Of course if the Council had (God forbid!) actually asked local residents how they think the site should be used, a viable alternative that protects green space for use by all could maybe have been arrived at. 

But who wants the messy business of actual constituents getting in the way of the cozy little number with the developer and their cash?

Post Reply