Author: Cyril Richert
As the planning proposal for Peabody’s redevelopment is going ahead (with the Council officer recommendation for approval!) and will be seen before the Planning Committee on Wednesday 18th July (@7.30pm, Town Hall – please attend, it is very important), we publish below the letter of objection sent by the Councillors of Northcote Ward.
9th July 2012
On behalf of the three Northcote Ward Councillors, I submit the following comments on the above application:
Although we support the redevelopment of Peabody’s St John’s Hill estate and welcome, for example, the mixed tenure housing that would be created, we are of the view that the application as submitted is seriously flawed. Therefore we believe the current application should be withdrawn so that the issues we detail below can be addressed. If the application proceeds we believe that these issues are of sufficient importance that planning permission should be refused.
a) Traffic – we do not believe the traffic study takes into account the problems currently experienced on the awkward local road network with all its’ restrictions and difficulties. We recognise that there will only be a limited increase in on-site parking, but consider that the proposal would be most likely to lead to a significant increase in visitor and service traffic with consequential implications for the neighbouring roads. This issue may be remedied by the provision of a main vehicular entrance and exit on Boutflower Road but without a through route to the Eckstein Road entrance and exit. We appreciate that this would be likely to need significant changes to the layout of the development.
b) The development would require the removal of a significant number of on-street parking places to the detriment of existing local residents and shoppers in an area where parking opportunities are already in exceptionally high demand.
c) The 550ft/169.5 metre block on the north-western edge of the site alongside the railway, would be highly visible from St.John’s Hill and would present an unacceptable overbearing perspective.
d) The massing and design of the 4 storey block on St.John’s Hill makes no attempt to integrate with the Victorian terrace which it adjoins. It makes a poor and thoughtless transformation from existing to new.
e) The development proposed on the Boutflower Road frontage is not supported as it prevents the creation of a vehicular entrance and exit at the only location that would not be detrimental to the amenity of existing local residents. [See (a) above]
f) The 4 storey block on the southernmost leg of Eckstein Road does not respect the scale of the existing buildings opposite, and taken together with the 7 storey block in the centre of the site, would be seriously damaging to the outlook for residents of that road.
g)The 7 and 5 storey blocks close to the southernmost leg of Comyn Road would present an overbearing appearance to existing local residents.
h) There is far from sufficient high quality recreational and play space for the 200+ children likely to reside in the development. Although there are the remote sections of Wandsworth Common nearby, this is unlikely to be appropriate for the wide spread of ages likely to be living on the proposed estate.
We would be grateful if these concern could be drawn to the notice of members of the Planning Applications Committee.
And on behalf of
Councillor Peter Dawson
& Councillor Jennie Brown
Members for the Northcote Ward.
On Peabody’s redevelopment you can also read:
- How Peabody is providing misleading images (against Council’s regulation)
- Peabody: opposition, action and leaflets
Did you like reading this article? Help us writing more!
Clapham Junction Insider (formerly called CJAG website) has been publishing local news for more than 14 years and remains committed to providing local community information and public interest journalism.
We aim to feature as much as possible on community campaigns and initiatives, local societies, charities based in the area, fundraising efforts by residents and helping residents.
We've always done that and won't be changing, in fact we'd like to do more.
Until recently, all stories, analysis and reports published have been made with the great help of many volunteers. However, at the end of the day it cost time and efforts and we are frustrated that we cannot do more: there are many subjects that we would like to cover but we need financial resources to help us providing regular information.
We are therefore asking our readers to consider offering financial support to these efforts. Any money given will help support community and public interest news and 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:
- 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.
- 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.