New Hotel in CJ – Martin Linton's objection

1 min read
1

[From Cyril Richert: We publish below, with the consent of its author, the presentation sent by Martin Linton, MP for Battersea, to the Planning Committee. Link with original PDF document is here.]

Author: Martin Linton MP

Dear Councillor McDonnell and members of the Committee,
RE: 16-storey hotel at 155 Falcon Road (Application 2009/1291)
I am writing to object to this building on the grounds it is too tall and out of scale with its surroundings.
Although it is shorter than the two 42-storey towers proposed by Metronet, it is still three times the height of Debenham’s and would sominate the entire town centre.
hotel0Tall buildings can work when they are next to other tall buildings, as in Canary Wharf, or even Vauxhall, but not in the shopping centre that was built in the late Victorian era and is mainly 4-7 storeys.
I know Wandsworth’s planning policies have long identified the town centres as possible locations for taller buildings, but that does not override the need to make sure buildings fit in with their surroundings.
Both CABE and English Heritage have in the past suggested the the Council needs to elaborate its tall buildings strategy. Given that the great majority of residents are clearly against tall buildings dominating the town centre, I should have thought Wandsworth would want to work out a strategy more in tune with local opinion.
Yours truly,
Martin Linton

Did you like reading this article? Help us write more!

Clapham Junction Insider (formerly known as the CJAG website) has been publishing local news for over 14 years and remains committed to providing information about the local community and engaging in public interest journalism.

Our goal is to feature a wide range of community campaigns and initiatives, local societies, charities based in the area, fundraising efforts by residents, and provide assistance to residents.

We have always been dedicated to these endeavours and have no intention of changing. In fact, we would like to expand our efforts further.

Until recently, all the stories, analyses, and reports published have been made possible with the invaluable help of many volunteers. However, it requires a significant amount of time and effort, and we are frustrated that we cannot do more. There are numerous topics we would like to cover, but we require financial resources to provide regular information.

Therefore, we kindly ask our readers to consider offering financial support to sustain these efforts. Any contributions made will help support community and public interest news, as well as the expansion of our coverage in this area.

2 ways of supporting our project

Do you think what we are doing is helping the community and you want to encourage us to do more? We have set up two ways of supporting our project:

  1. Paypal: For one-off contributions, you can just use your bank card. However if you wish to encourage and support us regularly with a small amount, you will need a Paypal account to set up a monthly subscription. Click here to donate.
  2. Patreon: this is a well-known membership platform that connects content creators with supporters. Mainly, it offers financial tools that let supporters subscribe to projects that give creators a predictable income stream as they continue to create content. Click here to subscribe and support us regularly.

If you do support us in this way we'd be interested to hear what kind of articles you would like to see more of on the site – send your suggestions to the editor.

CJI editor and Clapham Junction Action Group co-founder and coordinator since 2008, Cyril has lived in Clapham Junction since 2001.
He is also funder and CEO of Habilis-Digital Ltd, a digital agency creating and managing websites and Internet solutions.

View all

You might be interested in

1 Comment

  1. Martin Linton has correctly identified that the main discussion point on this application is its height. We have given our design rationale in the Design and Access Statement submitted with the application and we hope people have the opportunity to take a look at that.
    Martin is of course perfectly entitled to his opinion and to express it.
    From the point of view of the applicants it should be pointed out that he was invited to the exhibition on site in April 2008, when the proposed building was taller and broader, when his opinions could have been expressed at that time. However there was no response to the invitation and he attended neither of the dates.

Comments are closed.

Latest from Blog