07 Vauxhall Square, item 6. PDF 626 KB - Lambeth Council
07 Vauxhall Square, item 6. PDF 626 KB - Lambeth Council 07 Vauxhall Square, item 6. PDF 626 KB - Lambeth Council
orough. How is the policing of this young population going to be organised? The combination of lots of new bars and students seems like a problem in the making which hasn't been addressed. The Park has already been subject to some anti social behaviour coming out of the night clubs and it is natural chill out zone. What plans are there to address this problem? Where is the local community planning in all of this? At every stage, everyone else apart from the local community is being planned for. Lack of affordable housing Although CLS have done some good things, they seem, along with all the other developers, to be flouting all guidance. An example of this is the ratio of affordable housing. Admittedly things like their ratio of affordable housing are better than others (at 22%) but it's still pretty shocking that 18% below the desired Council policy is considered good. We know from the other planning applications which have gone through that there is already a deficit in what has been allowed so at what point is the 40% going to be achieved. The chosen location for the move of the homeless hostel within this development putting vulnerable people slapped against the railway line must be questioned on ethical grounds. The proposals now before planning are significantly detrimental to our park - a legacy of Octavia Hill, Henry Fawcett and the Kyrle Society. With a few alterations to the design (reducing the height of the main towers in line with planning guidance and in particular a redesign of Miles Street South), with a reconsideration of the play space and a more meaningful contribution from the developer to the long term impacts on Vauxhall Park we would probably have accepted the proposals. 5.53 Fentiman Road, Richborne Terrace and Dorset Road R/A: No representations received. 5.54 Harleyford Court Tenants Association: No representations received. 5.55 Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association: No representations received. 5.56 Hanover Gardens Association: No representations received. 5.57 Hanover Gardens Residents Association: No representations received. 5.58 Heart of Kennington Residents Association: No representations received. 5.59 Harleyford Road Action Group: No representations received. 5.60 I.M.P.A.C.T.: No representations received. 5.61 Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association: No representations received. 5.62 Kilner House Residents Association: No representations received. 5.63 Mursell Estate Group: No representations received.
5.64 Central Stockwell Street Residents and Tenants Association: No representations received. 5.65 Crimsworth Thorparch Residents Association: No representations received. 5.66 Hemans Estate Tenants and Residents Association: No representations received. 5.67 Mursell Estate Tenants and Residents Association: No representations received. 5.68 Stockwell Partnership: No representations received. 5.69 Stockwell Park Residents Association: No representations received. 5.70 Studley Estate Tenants and Residents Association: No representations received. No. of Letters No. of Objections No. in support Comments sent 2604 32 5 0 Objections: Council’s Response: Loss of daylight and sunlight to the terrace properties along Wandsworth Road Given the scale of the development, the proposed development would impact on the vibrations, both during the building works and on the long-term structure. The applicant has submitted a daylight and sunlight report by GIA, which has been independently assessed by Right to Light Consulting. They have concluded in their report that there would be significant impact to the terrace situated at 101 to 111 Wandsworth Road, however, these properties are dual aspect and the windows to the living rooms face away from the development and therefore will not be affected. Other existing and proposed neighbouring properties would also experience a noticeable impact, although to much lesser degree. The BRE guide states that in an area with modern high rise buildings, a higher degree of obstruction may be unavoidable if new developments are to match the height and proportions of existing buildings. Right to Light are of the opinion in this regard the Vauxhall Square scheme would not conflict with the principles set out in the BRE guide. The applicant has stated within section 8 of the Environment Statement that the impact of the development during both demolition and construction stage would be negligible subject to appropriate measures being taken during this part of the development. Officers have also imposed conditions
- 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 22 and 23: 5.42 Vauxhall Neighbourhood Housing
- 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
orough. How is the policing of this young population going to be organised?<br />
The combination of lots of new bars and students seems like a problem in the<br />
making which hasn't been addressed. The Park has already been subject to<br />
some anti social behaviour coming out of the night clubs and it is natural chill<br />
out zone. What plans are there to address this problem? Where is the local<br />
community planning in all of this? At every stage, everyone else apart from the<br />
local community is being planned for.<br />
Lack of affordable housing<br />
Although CLS have done some good things, they seem, along with all the other<br />
developers, to be flouting all guidance. An example of this is the ratio of<br />
affordable housing. Admittedly things like their ratio of affordable housing are<br />
better than others (at 22%) but it's still pretty shocking that 18% below the<br />
desired <strong>Council</strong> policy is considered good. We know from the other planning<br />
applications which have gone through that there is already a deficit in what has<br />
been allowed so at what point is the 40% going to be achieved.<br />
The chosen location for the move of the homeless hostel within this<br />
development putting vulnerable people slapped against the railway line must be<br />
questioned on ethical grounds. The proposals now before planning are<br />
significantly detrimental to our park - a legacy of Octavia Hill, Henry Fawcett and<br />
the Kyrle Society. With a few alterations to the design (reducing the height of the<br />
main towers in line with planning guidance and in particular a redesign of Miles<br />
Street South), with a reconsideration of the play space and a more meaningful<br />
contribution from the developer to the long term impacts on <strong>Vauxhall</strong> Park we<br />
would probably have accepted the proposals.<br />
5.53 Fentiman Road, Richborne Terrace and Dorset Road R/A: No representations<br />
received.<br />
5.54 Harleyford Court Tenants Association: No representations received.<br />
5.55 Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association: No representations received.<br />
5.56 Hanover Gardens Association: No representations received.<br />
5.57 Hanover Gardens Residents Association: No representations received.<br />
5.58 Heart of Kennington Residents Association: No representations received.<br />
5.59 Harleyford Road Action Group: No representations received.<br />
5.60 I.M.P.A.C.T.: No representations received.<br />
5.61 Kennington Cross Neighbourhood Association: No representations received.<br />
5.62 Kilner House Residents Association: No representations received.<br />
5.63 Mursell Estate Group: No representations received.
Change language