Dear All

I have decided to add the full text of an exemplary objection letter that has been put to Wandsworth Council's planning department in relation to the REVISED proposals submitted by Rockwell.

The letter is authored by Richard Jacques, Chair of the Lots Road Neighbourhood Forum. I am adding it here because his letter expertly covers all necessary points against One Battersea Bridge. It is articulate and includes vital detail that expertly rebuts the planning application at every turn.

In particular, I draw your attention to the remarks about the 400+ letters of "Support" that Rockwell has cynically solicited from residents - without providing them with an adequate balance as regards details of the development.

I recommend that you find the time to read this submission carefully, so you can understand the issues. I then ask that you summarise its key points, as well as those from my objection note in the previous up-date here, and then file your objection. Please make sure you refer to this petition and the "dodgy" letters. Maybe you can mention the un-resounding "toxicity" of OBB.

Objections need to be filed by 21st November - this Thursday. There are currently 1,176 objections. In my humble opinion, this is still a modest number when you consider that this petition has nearly 4,500 signatories. Where are the other 3,300!?

Please get typing and make your voice heard by posting your comments at the link below. All you have to do is click 'Make a comment' and then you are off, on the glorious path to local democracy...

Add this reference:  Revised Planning Application 2024/1322

https://planning2.wandsworth.gov.uk/planningcase/comments.aspx?case=2024%2f1322

Did I mention the word "toxic"? Please tell the council that One Battersea Bridge is an utterly toxic plan that fails the residents of Battersea and its surrounding neighbourhoods on every conceivable level and that it should be consigned to the bin.

Please - Don't type on by.

Regards

RMc

ps:  For his diligent work, I am delighted to award four House Points to Mr Jacques, plus an extra bun at high tea.

Mr. Graeme Felstead

Planning and Transport 

12th November 2024

Dear Mr. Felstead,  

Re: Revised Planning Application 2024/1322: Glassmill site, One Battersea Bridge Further Objections submitted by the Lots Road Neighbourhood Forum

Many thanks for your letter of 31st October 2024 in relation to the revisions that have been made to above mentioned Planning Application. I am responding in my capacity as Chair of the Lots Road Neighbourhood Forum, designated by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea for the purposes of Neighbourhood Planning under section 61F and 61G of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended.

The Lots Road Neighbourhood Forum Area includes both Lots Village and Cheyne Walk up to Battersea Bridge, an area that will be highly impacted by the proposed Glassmill development and very small reduction in the height of the building from 34 storeys to 28 storeys plus double height ground floor, will not in any material way alter the major problems with these proposals, namely the loss of visual amenity, the negative impact on the Thames Conservation Area, the overlooking and overshadowing of the buildings and the consequences for traffic and transport on both sides of Battersea Bridge.

While we would usually welcome the provision of social rent homes, the relatively small number of homes contained in this development does not offset or ameliorate the major negative impact that a building of this scale will have on neighbouring communities.

Loss of visual amenity

We believe that the proposed development will have both negative impact on the Thames Conservation Area, with terrible consequences for the historic views and surroundings that create the backdrop to this precious part of London’s riverside landscape.

At the heart of our concerns is the view that the proposed development is much too tall and will overwhelm the established RBKC Cheyne Conservation Area and the Thames Conservation Area with their numerous important listed buildings. These include: Grade I Chelsea Old Church; Grade I Royal Hospital Chelsea; Grade II* Lindsey House; Grade II*Crosby Hall; Grade II* Albert Bridge and numerous Grade II buildings in Chelsea. This loss of visual amenity that will be felt by local residents on both sides of the river.

The height and scale of the proposed building will also have a negative impact on neighbours and those who live close to the site by overshadowing and the loss of privacy this entails.

The proposed building would also cause significant nighttime intrusion into the homes of nearby residents due to the significant light pollution created by the building.

Incompatibility with Wandsworth’s Local Plan

The proposed building also flies in the face of Wandsworth’s Local Plan adopted in July 2023, which clearly states the Council’s intention to restrict proposals for tall and mid-rise buildings outside tall building zones. This was an issue that was given considerable attention and consideration during the local plan process and inspection, and the Inspector made clear the concern that any exceptions could lead to:

‘a free for all in relation to tall buildings across Wandsworth. Such an approach would not be in accordance with the London Plan or be appropriate given the proximity of Westminster World Heritage Site and other Designated Heritage Assets that are spread across the Borough, as well as sensitivity in terms of amenity/living conditions and other important conservation and design considerations. The quality of many parts of the Borough would be vulnerable to buildings that are out of place with their surroundings as a result of their height.’ (Planning Inspectorate’s Report on the Examination of the Wandsworth Local Plan of 23 June 2023, Paragraph 116)

We believe that the Glassmill proposals directly reflect the concerns of the Inspector in regard to Wandsworth's tall buildings policy. It should also be noted that in the Local Plan, the site is not included in the tall buildings zone and even considering the adjoining tall building zone, there the height is restricted to 12 storeys, far below the 28 storeys plus double height ground floor proposed by the rapacious Glassmill developers.

Negative Impact on Local Traffic and Transport

The negative impact on local transport and traffic. Battersea Bridge is a key piece of infrastructure for traffic moving through South Chelsea and Battersea, and a building project of this scale will bring the areas on both sides of the river to a standstill and pose an unacceptable threat to all road users. This is particularly the case given that the site is hemmed in by double red lines which prevent ‘any stopping, loading or parking at any time’, something that has notbeen properly considered for both the construction phase and the eventual occupation of the proposed building which will have its proposed residential access on the red route.

To remind you, para 111 of the NPPF states that development should only be prevented or refused on highway grounds if ‘there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe’. We believe that this test for refusal is more than met by the proposed development.

It should also be noted that once completed, the volume of new homes proposed will also impose yet another burden on a constrained transport system in this part of London.The site has a PTAL 3 rating that represents only average public transport connectivity, while at the same time the scheme provides only 18 car parking spaces for 110 apartments forcing the burden onto this inadequate transport system.

Unacceptable consequences for the environment

The Glassmill site is already almost wholly filled with a relatively modern 7 storey concrete framed building, capable of being repurposed within the site. Demolition should not be allowed without full and proper justification for the loss of a huge amount of embodied carbon. Faced with such a loss is not credible for the developer to claim this development with be an ‘exemplar’ of sustainability.

Poor design quality, living standards and public realm

The submitted application proposes a development that:

-  Fails to resolve the fire hazards of a 28 storey building, showing a lack of concern and understanding of the post-Grenfell environment.
-  Fails in 50% of the affordable homes to meet London Plan Guidance that all new homes should be dual aspect.
-  Fails to deliver high quality public realm. The claim that this development on an acknowledged constrained site will create a waterfront plaza is misleading. Any development on this site would provide an opportunity to improve the existing riverfront walk-ways, but this is not the creation of a meaningful plaza or any other expansive area of public realm.

The developer’s misleading representations

In making these objections we wish to associate our views with those previously expressed by The Chelsea Society, the Cheyne Walk Trust, the Putney Society and the Wandsworth Society. I would also draw your attention to the S.O.B.B. petition on change.org, which at the time of writing has gathered to 4,417 objections to the proposed development and is a clear indication of the views of the local community that lives in and around Battersea.

I would contrast this with the tactics deployed by the developer and their uploading to the Wandsworth Planning portal of hundreds of proforma letters, claiming to represent the views of supporters of this development. I am sure you have seen the press coverage concerning the veracity of these letters, and I hope you will agree that these tactics should cast doubt over the developer’s wider assertions of the befits of this development.

Lastly, if there are any points in our objections that require greater clarification please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Jacques
Chair, Lots Road Neighbourhood Forum