Hello All

Below I publish a few key passages put forward by The Battersea Society in opposition to the One Battersea Bridge proposal.

The full version of the statement is yet another decisive take down of the entire project.  You can read it all here.

I extend my support to the society for this document. They have high-lighted some serious issues, not least "the manipulative manner in which views on the proposals were sought from the Community". That is a damning indictment of the developer and something that should be explored in greater depth and exposed.

Thank you

RMc

The Battersea Society objects strongly to this application for a 34-storey tower on a small but very prominent site facing the River Thames next to Battersea Bridge. The case put forward by the developers for their proposal is summarised in five text boxes on page 30 of the Design and Access Statement, with the title “Optimising the Opportunity”. But as set out below the case is flawed both in logic and in substance.

We also wish to draw attention to the concerns expressed by the Design Review Panel, which we share, register concern at the proposed housing mix, comment on the detrimental effect of such a development on traffic and transport in the area, and note the manipulative manner in which views on the proposals were sought from the Community.

• The company argues that a tall building is required because keeping to the height of the existing six storey building “would limit housing delivery”. That is an absurd claim. One might as well say that any house or other building in Battersea has “limited development capacity”, so the only solution is to knock it down and build a 34-storey tower of flats on it.

•  It should also be noted that all the affordable housing is stated to be “subject to viability”. There is no guarantee as to the amount of affordable housing to be provided.

• We can see no reason why the Council should not apply the Local Plan Policy LP4 C, which states that the Council will “seek to restrict proposals for tall buildings outside the identified tall building zones”

• We note that drawings indicate that significant proportions of the affordable units will be single aspect, because of the admitted constraints of the site. This is not compliant with Local Plan Policy LP 27 B, and provides further evidence that what is proposed is the wrong building on the wrong site. It is unlikely that this development would be in any sense tenure blind.

• For all the reasons outlined above, we believe that the case put forward for the proposed building is fundamentally flawed, and that the application should be refused. The Battersea Society will continue to object to the proposed development in anything like its current form.