https://tinyurl.com/TowerPlanning
| 70 metre tower planning application is closing this week
Dear Neighbours,
It is the week leading up to Christmas, but I’m afraid this can’t wait. We need 10 minutes of your time.
You may have received a letter last week about the proposed 70 metre tower for Lambeth College site. The new planning application was submitted on 1st December and we only have this week (until 24th December) to make our comments.
Every adult in your household can make a separate comment.
Anyone can make a comment; they do not have to live in Lambeth.
We would recommend that you submit comments by Wednesday 21st December as we’ve seen a variety of closure dates, and the website has been down for maintenance last weekend. Leaving it to the last day is risky as it may slow down and if it crashes there will be no IT support due to holidays.
A group of your neighbours have kindly been looking into the plans in detail to gather the information below.
When you are making your comments you ought to mention your personal circumstance and how the tower will affect you.
If you are unsure on what to add in your comment, the points below are most likely to be considered as they are the areas that will be reassessed for this new planning application.
Do pick the things that matter to you rather than wholesale ‘copy & paste’. • 262 flats on 0.25 hectare of land is extreme density, unprecedented in London. ◦ When measured in ‘dwellings per hectare’ (dph), new blocks in London are typically 300-700 dph. This development would be 1,050 dph ◦ Recent developments of a similar scale in Lambeth show how extreme this tower would be. Keybridge House in Vauxhall is 411 dph, Thrayle House in Stockwell is 230 dph and the approved build-to-rent apartments on top of Nine Elms station are 740 dph. • Towers typically have 5 flats per storey, this will have 12 flats per storey. ◦ With so many flats the design needs to be re-considered in favour of a shorter block, or multiple lower density buildings • 150 of the flats (57%) are single-aspect, which London Housing Design Standards policy say should only be built in ‘exceptional circumstances’. ◦ Single aspect should not be 3 bedroom flats, they should not face north or south. This design has 20 flats that are classed as facing north, south or are 3 bedroom flats. ◦ 72 single aspect flats will be affected by excessive noise due to the Covent Garden market ◦ These will be liable to overheat, suffer from significant night time noise pollution and will be dependent on mechanical cooling. • The mix for new developments in Lambeth should be (no more than) 25% 1 bed units, 25-60% 2 bed units, up to 30% 3 bed units. The tower is unbalanced as it would contain 52% studio and 1 bed flats. ◦ Lambeth’s demand for 1 bedroom is only around 30% whereas around 17% demand is for 3 bed units. • The proposed closure of Brooklands Passage will, in essence, give the development public land for free and will prevent the improvements that were formally agreed in 2014. ◦ Covent Garden Market has given the corner of their land over to the public realm which will mean the tall walls are due to be taken down and a new parklet built. With the closure, the development will likely prevent the creation of this promised new public park ◦ The closure of Brooklands Passage will also remove a public right of way, replacing it with one that runs through the development that could be shut by Lambeth College in the future. • External amenity space for residents does not meet the policy of 10 sqm per flat; it provides only 7 sqm per flat in total ◦ There is also insufficient play space around the development. There would be an estimated 40 children in the building, which according to London Plan policy should have at least 10 sqm per child. ◦ The total on and off-site provision of play space is 260 sqm, falling short of the 400 sqm. ◦ Larkhall Park is expected to take the brunt as an adjacent play space, however, this would require children to go up (busier) Belmore Street and across Wandsworth Road where there is no safe road crossing directly from Belmore Street to Larkhall Park. It is actually 430 metres away (5-10 mins walk) when taking safe routes rather than the 300m stated in the design and access statement ◦ There is an offer to provide (undefined level) of money for use of the parklet and Larkhall park, neither of which need investment. Money will not make these well-used spaces bigger to compensate for the development’s lack of amenity and play space • The Lambeth College site is not within an area deemed suitable for residential intensification according to VNEB OA planning framework. ◦ Residential towers have been designated as suited to the area around the new Nine Elms underground station and along the mainline railway viaduct. ◦ Higher density developments are only recommended for sites that have a high public transport accessibility score. This site is rated 2 or ‘poor’, with surrounding street areas rated 3 (poor access). • There will be increased footfall, bicycles, taxis and other types of traffic through the streets of Goldsboro, Thorparch, Crimsworth, Cowthorpe and Fount Street. ◦ No assessment is given to the qualities of Crimsworth, Thorparch or Goldsboro roads which are currently unsuitable for large volumes of pedestrians, and are inaccessible for people with disabilities due to narrow pavements and large trees. ◦ No contributions are planned in this application to improve cycling safety and connectivity of existing routes. To make walking and cycling safer we would expect contributions from the developer to increase the quality of walking and cycling infrastructure in this area ◦ Consultations have underplayed the effect on the streets north of the development with anecdotal stories rather than evidence on the impact of bicycle, scooter, and van deliveries and taxis. ◦ However, According to London Plan policy, “Car-free developments should consider facilitation of home deliveries in a way that does not compromise the benefits of creating low-car or car-free environments.” • Planning permission will be granted for ‘build to rent’ so individuals will NOT own their homes. ◦ They cannot name the developer or management company at this stage, so there is no management plan in place. ◦ Any reassurances about noise management etc. can not be upheld. • Urban Greening Factor calculation states that 544 square metres of trees will be planted. This is not on the plans. ◦ There is no colour coded landscape master plan included. ◦ This number of trees would be near impossible to achieve on the site. • Neighbouring homes will be significantly overshadowed (+20%) ◦ Previous planning outline was given in Nov 2019 solely on the basis that the tower was mixed use with educational facilities and would provide community benefit in the form of student housing.
You can comment on the Planning Website https://us20.mailchimp.com/mctx/clicks?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplanning.lambeth.gov.uk%2Fonline-applications%2FapplicationDetails.do%3FactiveTab%3DmakeComment%26keyVal%3DRL741TBOK1V00&xid=4e1d5f682f&uid=116025730&iid=5d72ee67d1&pool=cts&v=2&c=1671488742&h=43c32ab197b3674e5503b45597d77b109f735d5ffbc950e40643eed882bec3e9
If you do have problems with the website, you can email: mailto:[email protected]. Make sure you reference the application number 22/04039/FUL. Include your name, address and contact number, anonymous comments won’t be accepted.
The Patmore Co-operative have submitted a strong objection to the tower.
It was well-written, so I’m copying an excerpt below:
Lambeth's own report into the original planning application (which this one somewhat oddly replaces), showed how much residents of our blocks on Belmore Street would be cast into almost permanent shadow, especially during winter months when very little sunshine would reach them due to the nature of the proposed block. This is literally casting social housing residents into the shadows.
We believe that this planning application will have an adverse effect on the lives of our residents and on the wider community. At a time of much needed community cohesion, it will rip that apart, dividing neighbours, removing sunlight, encouraging short stay residents, removing areas of historical significance and increasing pressure on infrastructure with scant regard for existing communities.
We as a cooperative: representing 854 homes with the highest ever mandate to continue to do so at our most recent continuation ballot, strongly oppose this application as it currently stands and encourage Lambeth Council to think again. Think. Again.
[Happy to share the full version of their objections. Email us and we can send it over]
Likewise, if anyone would like to see the full technical detail behind the summary objections above, we will be happy to share those with you.
The full document will be sent this week by the CTRA to Sean Newton, the case officer.
Please ask your neighbours and visitors to our streets to comment now:
If anyone would like to help with our ongoing research or help with informing neighbours then there is still time to help.
Please reply to this email to volunteer your time.
Many thanks,
| Your CTRA |
|---|