07 Vauxhall Square, item 6. PDF 626 KB - Lambeth Council

5.42 Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing Forum: No representations received.
5.43 The Vauxhall Society: No representations received.
5.44 Ashmole Estate Tenants Association: No representations received.
5.45 Albert Square Residents Association: No representations received.
5.46 Ashmole Tenants Association: No representations received.
5.47 Cambridge and Talbot House Association: No representations received.
5.48 Clapham Society: No representations received.
5.49 Cleaver Square Residents Association: No representations received.
5.50 Dorset Road Community Project: No representations received.
5.51 Friends of the Oval: No representations received.
5.52 Friends of Vauxhall Park: Objection received in relation to the application:
Local views and height of buildings
The proposal includes two towers of excessive height 168m compared to
planning guidance of 150m. This would have been bad enough as originally
planned but following a meeting that took place on the 21st June between
various people including the Lambeth Planning Officers but excluded all local
amenity groups including ourselves, they agreed to make changes. Why weren't
the local community consulted as the plans developed on 21 June? Issues like
the views and scale of the buildings, are extremely pertinent to the local
community, so why is consideration to more distant places like Battersea, being
given precedence over the local considerations and why wasn't sufficient weight
given in the full analysis to the visual impact on the Park.
The South Tower has been moved closer to the Park, the play area further away
from the park reducing the natural linkage, they have done away with one part
of student accommodation but instead created a much larger building the other
side of Miles Street (known as Miles Street South) to accommodate students -
this building described as mid-rise is still over 99m and higher than Keybridge
House and closer so the visual effect will be a wall much as proposed (and
defeated) at Bondway. (P50 is a misleading photo - need comparisons looking
other way through park).
Quality of open space and in particular play space
Then there is the quality of open space being offered. CLS is to be commended
for the details they give on planting schemes and clearly have put in a lot of
thought. However, the changes have reduced the play area for 0-11 year olds
to just 318m2 (on a development of approximately 150,000 m2); and there is no
provision for older children on site. Instead there is reliance for some offset by