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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
using the as yet non-existent Linear Park which is intended as a pedestrian and cycle friendly corridor through VNEB not a public park for leisure. In addition, how can they rely on facilities within this park which are not as yet guaranteed? Although the revised designs expand the central square, the play area has been moved and is now a caged enclosure which given the layout will hardly (if ever) get sunlight as it is situated in the south western corner - see shadow diags p112 and 113 + p116 where sketch diagram shows that cafes will need to be based at the far north eastern tip of the diamond shaped Vauxhall Square to have usable outside space for morning coffee/lunch/afternoon tea ie. furthest from the play area. There is intended to be opportunities for informal play around the square on lawns but these lawns are raised and so I am doubtful that parents would leave kids to run around at risk of falling off what is shown in the sketches as at least waist level height and sloped. Certainly no good for football/cricket game. The other open space - Miles Street Square - has also been reduced in size and consists of hard standing with 14 trees mainly cherry and some hornbeam, granite raised planting beds and cycle rack - also unlikely to receive any sunlight given location. The risks to children of suffering ricketts will be increased if this development goes through as scheduled. Future management Also plans for open space including festivals and ice rinks etc. How will this be managed? Will existing Oval residents, many from deprived communities be able to afford the 'events'? Overcrowding We already have a hotel at Kylun, a hotel adjacent to the Station (a travelodge) and the Comfort Inn along South Lambeth - this development will add two more hotels - one a suite hotel. We know of , and welcome, users from the Comfort Inn but all these hotels produce a demand on Park facilities. Setting aside the quality of the space for genuine leisure and the overshadowing preventing exposure for kids to some sunlight, there is ever increasing pressure likely to fall on Vauxhall Park. We already have Downing (at 30-60 South Lambeth Road 500 units in a tower 3m shorter) this will add another 359 student units. The proposals do provide balconies and shared spaces for hotel guests, students and the flats but is not the same as public realm and open space. I still don't have an answer from you as requested about plot ratios but looking at the spatial figures provided it but looks like s maximum of 4.5% shared amenity space (7000 m2 or so against overall size of development). I realise that this figure excludes winter gardens etc which are usually taken into account when talking about plot ratio. Likelihood of increased anti-social behaviour The bid talks about designing out crime yet the local environment is going to be degraded for the sake of students who come from and study outside the
Page 2 and 3: Site address Ward Proposal Applicat
Page 4 and 5: • 661_00_07_030 rev. 01 Retained
Page 6 and 7: • 661_00_07_544 rev. 01 Vauxhall
Page 8 and 9: and 30.11.2012 Street Management Ar
Page 10 and 11: Executive Summary This application
Page 12 and 13: 1 Summary of Main Issues 1.1 The ma
Page 14 and 15: 22,732sqm of new office floor space
Page 16 and 17: 4.17 A three-storey linear building
Page 18 and 19: with the road. Planting within Mile
Page 20 and 21: 5.24 London Underground Infrastruct
Page 24 and 25: orough. How is the policing of this
Page 26 and 27: on the application, which would lim
Page 28 and 29: excessive in terms of the planning
Page 30 and 31: proposed are menial and on this bas
Page 32 and 33: Policy 3.1 Policy 3.2 Policy 3.8 Po
Page 34 and 35: Policy 50 Open Space and Sports Fac
Page 36 and 37: 7.4 Retail 7.5 The application prop
Page 38 and 39: 7.15 Affordable Housing: 7.16 The L
Page 40 and 41: hostel provider have confirmed that
Page 42 and 43: 7.37 Officers consider that both th
Page 44 and 45: 7.53 Policy 50 of the Saved UDP see
Page 46 and 47: 7.64 The likely shadowing on the am
Page 48 and 49: and/ or have a significant impact o
Page 50 and 51: • The credibility of the design:
Page 52 and 53: the Bondway Warehouse and railway v
Page 54 and 55: softening to the building forms, wh
Page 56 and 57: Borough of Wandsworth, the London B
Page 58 and 59: trees to be planted along this road
Page 60 and 61: neighbouring properties: • Test 1
Page 62 and 63: each the guidelines and has an exis
Page 64 and 65: 9.24 The application proposes a ser
Page 66 and 67: condition on the planning permissio
Page 68 and 69: other proposed developments on Wand
Page 70 and 71: 10.12 Car Parking Lambeth Transport
Page 72 and 73:
dedicated service yard. Swept paths
Page 74 and 75:
• Photovoltaic (PV) modules for e
Page 76 and 77:
Holdings on these floorspace figure
Page 78 and 79:
to be identified in the S106. As no
Page 80 and 81:
provide further regenerative benefi
Page 82 and 83:
details regarding dust mitigation;
Page 84 and 85:
insulation for the residential unit
Page 86 and 87:
19. Prior to the commence of the de
Page 88 and 89:
and the provision of recycling faci
Page 90 and 91:
impact upon the community (Policy S
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?