Author: Cyril Richert
28 storeys in Lombard Road, 21 storeys and a podium to replace Homebase in York Road, buildings on York Gardens… but also the 36 storey tower Chinese development at the Ram Brewery, a 26 storeys in Garatt Lane and a large scheme near Wandsworth roundabout: all against planning regulation, all justified because “benefits outweigh harms”, large developments regularly recommended for approval despite planning policies, a government inspector saying that a big part of Wandsworth planning documents are ineffective…
If you want to know about that and much more, come to our public meeting this Sunday:
Sunday 1st November 2015
Venue: York Gardens Library 34 Lavender Road SW11 2UG
Discussion will be held about planning applications approved by the Council, the proposed developments, the planning policy documents (including their use by Wandsworth Council), the recent directions given by the local authority throughout the borough, and of course the community involvement and views of local residents.
A panel of speakers will talk about the recent outcomes in the area and the meeting will be open to comments made from the audience.
Speakers will include: Philip Whyte (Wandsworth Society), Cyril Richert (Clapham Junction Action group), Tony Belton (Councillor Latchmere Ward), Resident Members Committee of The Candlemakers Apartments.
Come along, find out, and let the Council know what YOU think!
>> You can download, send/print and distribute the leaflet >> HERE.
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.
Do not make the mistake that property prices always go up or that developers always make lots of profits http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34676643
Indeed. But they also highlight what we’ve been saying for a long time: “The demand for London properties was largely driven by foreign investors”.
The increase in the population has also driven it. The very many properties that were in multi occupation after the war have largely been put back into single family residences as originally built. On top foreign investors have bought many properties off plan just treating them as finacial instruments. In my opinion such properties should go into occupation and if not then the empty properties should be taxed. I do not think that high rise is the answer but high density is possible.
That is what Cllr Belton said at our public meeting yesterday (multi-occupation>single).
We will have the videos of the meeting on CJAG.org to watch very soon.
Thanks a lot for that presentation yesterday, it really matters that people like you do stand up for us to make sure the council respects its own rules.
I have one comment though: the meeting should have had some sort of ground rules to avoid people monopolizing the debate time. During the questions far too many people came with a political agenda stating what I would judge as “nonsense”, such as “everybody in the room agrees that new developments should be for social housing”. Your presentation, as I understood it, was to make residents aware of the developments in breach of planning guidelines and the impact this might have on the existing infrastructure (roads, schools…), not to debate about people not being able to live in prime central London.
So once again many thanks for your work, the Battersea residents really appreciate it, and sorry to not have been able to thank you in person yesterday.
Many thanks Lawrence for your comment.
Another goal for the meeting was to engage with people and make them see that they are not alone sharing discontent. I hope that we achieved a good balance between the speeches and the questions/statements from the audience.