Clapham Junction Action Group

Peabody redevelopment: our response to the consultation

You will find below our response addressed to Peabody, regarding their redevelopment proposal for the estate at Clapham Junction (you can download the PDF here).

Following the two days of consultation last week, we are now writing to you to submit our “official” comments on the proposal.

The current Peabody Estate is architecturally undistinguished, badly laid out, and poorly integrated with the rest of Clapham Junction town centre. So there is plenty to be said in principle for a redevelopment and the proposed new scheme has many good points. It will conform with new government criteria regarding repair/redevelopment of estates; it will open up the estate to the wider locality; and it will deliver much more diversity in terms of size, shape, texture, and colour in the new buildings.

But we do have criticisms. There is no escaping the fact that, if the plans are implemented as they stand, the new estate will have a transformatory visual effect on the whole neighbourhood. The height of the current buildings is five storeys, higher than most local buildings, but not substantially so. Yet it seems that several of the proposed new buildings will be ten storeys, and at least one twelve storeys, more than doubling the height of much of the estate.

When coupled with the fact that the estate lies at the top of St John’s Hill, on comparatively much higher ground than the rest of the town centre (something which, incidentally, the exhibition model failed to illustrate), there can be no doubt that the proposed scheme will create a looming, architecturally distinct, presence, dominating the locality in a way that the existing estate simply does not. The eight storeys of the Granada/Lumiere building nearby, which were permitted by the Council against local opposition as an exception to existing planning guidance (in order to maintain/sustain the old auditorium), are already an eyesore. One or more of the proposed new Peabody buildings will be fifty percent higher than that.

History and experience suggest that multistorey blocks, which are significantly out of kilter with the rest of Clapham Junction, will simply become the new normal (at least for developers, if not for Council officers). Five years ago, the area consisted almost exclusively of 3-5 storey buildings. Within a few years we have moved to 8 and now potentially to 12. Yet two years ago a thousand local residents expressed their opposition to tall buildings in Clapham Junction.  When the much needed redevelopment of Clapham Junction station takes place almost anything could be put forward. Who can credibly argue that 12 storeys on the Peabody will not set a new precedent for height in what is currently still a stylistically cohesive and relatively low rise environment?

During the consultation we have heard voices expressing similar concerns about the size of the proposed construction. Although we acknowledge and support the idea of redeveloping the current site, we believe that some minor amendments could allow the new Peabody Estate to integrate in a more sympathetic way with the local environment.

For example, you should consider lowering the tallest tower(s) with or without change to other buildings. The residential capacity lost from one or two planned twelve storey buildings can very easily be redistributed with increases elsewhere around the estate. This is indisputable. However many opponents may argue that this will somehow damage the alleged design integrity or architectural vision of the scheme, such alterations won’t create any major new difficulty in terms of shadowing or bulking, but will certainly show more respect for the character of Clapham Junction and the Northcote area.

The height (but not density) reduction will plainly create a less intrusive, more harmonious presence that also significantly reduces the potential for development excess elsewhere in the future.

Addressing and not ignoring the worry of many local residents in Clapham Junction would demonstrate an undeniable concern for the inhabitants of the area. This should be the purpose of your consultation, before you make a definite submission for planning permission in a few months. We look forward – with optimism – to your response.

***

We have received the following response from Richard Stanway-Williams:

Sent : Friday 25 Novembre 2011 15:52
Object : RE: Peabody redevelopment – Comments from CJAG

Hi Cyril

Thank you for taking the time to visit the Exhibition and for your letter. Obviously I am delighted to see that, in principle, you agree to Peabody ’s plans albeit with concerns over the height of the buildings.

As you might imagine we are in the process of collating the comments and feedback received over the past few weeks but I will respond to your suggestions, observations and concerns in due course. I would suggest that I come and meet with you, along with any other of your colleagues, to explain how we intend to deal with the points you have raised. A sensible time for this would be next month when we have more detail from the Architects of the proposed buildings. I trust you would find this helpful.

I will be in touch in due course.

Regards

***

You can also read our other articles:

• Peabody redevelopment: feedback from the public exhibition
• In my view, 10 storeys is excessive, and anything above that entirely out of order
• Why we ask for amendments on the Peabody proposal
• Peabody redevelopment: the proposal

We encourage anyone to send their message (and feel free to copy us/post it in our contact box):

Email: clapham.development@peabody.org.uk

Post: Richard Stanway-Williams, Peabody,
45 Westminster Bridge Rd, London, SE1 7JB

November 30, 2011 at 11:12 am 4 comments

Peabody redevelopment: feedback from the public exhibition

Author: Cyril Richert

Peabody Trust organised an exhibition to consult on their redevelopment proposal on Tuesday 15th and Saturday 19th November.

We have published concerns of local residents in a previous article, published the day before the first opening of their exhibition.

You will find a description of the proposal on their website (and in our article) but we got more information from our discussions:

• They anticipate that there will be about 546 dwellings on the site (still being tuned). Approximately half of these will be for private sale and the reminder will be affordable homes retained in Peabody’s ownership or part sold to share ownership buyers.
  Currently Peabody owns 100% of the existing dwellings (none are privately owned)
• Building heights will range from 4-12 storeys.
  The maximum height of the existing buildings is 5 storeys plus lift rooms but according to the developers, in some places those buildings are higher than a normal 5 storey building because of built up ground. For example the blocks in Comyn Road will be 4 storeys but as they will be built from the existing pavement level the overall height will be smaller than the existing.
• Car parking will be located surface level and underground. However only 20 spaces will be available on surface for disable/car-club. They have agreed in principle that car parking should provide a ration of 30% (163 car parking spaces), therefore the vast majority (~140) will be located underground.
  Currently there are 127 car spaces (36%) for 351 accommodations (but a large number are currently empty due to the plans for redevelopment).
• Environmental initiatives, including solar panels and combined heat and power system to provide heating and hot water.

Below are 3 photos of the site mock-up (click on the image to see it bigger):

On Tuesday 15th, I had opportunities to talk with Claire Bennie (Peabody, now Development director, that we met in January 2010) and Katie Finnie (Hawkins Brown – Project architect). During my second visit on Saturday 19th I had time to complete the review of the scheme and also met with Elsie Josland (Farrer Huxley Associates – Landscape), Rich Spens (Max Fordham – Sustainability) and Richard Stanway-Williams (Peabody – Project Leader).

Environment and Landscape

As explained by Elsie in a very enthusiastic voice, the internal streets have been designed as a shared use/home-zone. People will have the priority  and car access will be limited to Eckstein Road, around the Community centre and to Comyn Road. The speed zone will be 10mph and street furnitures will be placed here and there to prevent vehicles and avoid any incentive to cut into the estate.

For all building with an internal courtyard, they will locate a children playground (0-11) and other play areas for all ages around the centre of the estate (outdoor equipments, chess board, table tennis).

Residents have complained about the current lake of light due to the size of the trees. Out of the current 50 trees, they plan to retain about 5 located at the entrances of the new layout of the estate. 71 new trees, which have been discussed and chosen by the current residents,  will be planted with different species (fruits, light tress such as Locust trees,…) with root barriers to avoid damages to buildings.

Lavender will be planted as a reference to the history of the site (and Lavender Hill).

They are also planning about 100 secure bike parking (within the courtyards) with a total of about 800 bike parking (the rule is ~1 per bed space).

Energy and Sustainability

Rich explained that all individual boilers will be replaced by one centralised heating system. Example of Denmark was given were the capacity is up to 10% of residents showering at the same time. Here, Peabody has extended the limit to 20%.

Photovoltaic panels will be located on higher roofs and alternate with green roofs. They hope to be able to provide about 15% of the total energy used by the estate.

Buildings

The proposal includes 51% of the dwellings being affordable, while 49% will be private. Amongst the 279 social flats, some will be offered in share ownership. 10% will allow wheelchair access and 80 could be used for people in mind.

On the size of the buildings Peabody thinks this will not create a precedent, nor will be awkward and disruptive in the area of low rise building of Northcote Road. Claire Bennie argued that without the town centre boundary change it would have been a) impossible to build taller buildings and b) impossible to locate local shops (the are planning 4 shops near St John’s Hill).

This is what we have argued all along. In addition the two arguments are wrong because

a) the planning documents say that “tall buildings in this location are likely to be inappropriate” not that they are forbidden if they can justify themselves with their architecture and their environment; and

b) in the SSAD-Preferred Options document, November 2009, the site was not in the town centre boundary but the document already said: “The street block fronting on to St John’s Hill could include a mixed-use development with individual retail units to ground floor.”

In addition, Peabody believes that since the town centre boundaries have been changed it has been agreed with the Council and that this is now reality (obviously not knowing that it was under discussion before the government inspector last October, and we will have to see his report at the beginning of 2012).

The construction is meant to happen in 3 phases for a total of 6 years.

Last but not least, for anybody having seen the Feedback Form, it seems very difficult to answer No to any of the questions. For example, is anybody saying No to “Do you support the concept of integrating the Peabody site into the surrounding streets“? Maybe the question would have been more appropriate as: “Do you think the proposed scheme will integrate the Peabody site into the surrounding area?” This is just an example…

When asked how many comments they need to receive in order to address the questions raised, they did not answer. However we encourage anyone to send their message:

Email: clapham.development@peabody.org.uk

Post: Richard Stanway-Williams, Peabody,
45 Westminster Bridge Rd, London, SE1 7JB

November 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm 1 comment

In my view, 10 storeys is excessive, and anything above that entirely out of order

Author: David Hargreaves

Regarding the Peabody Estate, in principle I am not opposed to redevelopment. The existing layout is fortress-like and the buildings are gloomy. Opening it all up would be good. The Peabody people seem to be amenable to discussion and, at least partially, sensitive to local opinion. The latest version of their plans is a big improvement on the first version.

HOWEVER, I do think we should attempt to hold the line as best we can on height. The 8 storeys on the Lumiere were supposedly an “exception” permitted by the Council against local opposition. The re-designation of the town centre to permit a tower block on part of the Peabody site is a consummately devious Council manoeuvre. There is no doubt a slippery slope could easily come into operation, permitting at some future date yet higher buildings close by.  Like it or not, the Lumiere is now a fait-accompli and there is a new 8 storey benchmark for height at the top of St John’s Hill.

In my view, 10 storeys is excessive, and anything above that entirely out of order. Looking at the new plans and thinking about the geography, it does seem that the highest proposed buildings are in fact located at the most prominently visible position on the estate, fronting or almost fronting onto St John’s Hill. These would be starkly visible from, say, the area Arding & Hobbs (especially the Falcon Pub and the station main entrance), with all the added elevation effect of the hill enhancing their towering presence, plus the wide open space of the railway cutting in the other direction gives no cover at all.

Proposal for some changes

If, and it’s a big if, buildings higher than 8 storeys are to be permitted anywhere on the site, would it not be a better idea to locate them more towards the centre of the estate, surrounded by buildings of lower height, thus helping to conceal their towering nature and offering a more graduated prospect of the estate’s overall height to observers?  Wandsworth appears quite happy to re-designate the official boundaries of the town centre, so I expect they could handle whatever changes such an initiative might demand.

It does seem to me that a number of buildings towards the centre of the estate could more comfortably have some floors added, enabling the more prominent buildings at the edges, notably anything of 12 storeys, to be capped at a much more appropriate height for the general environment.

***

Read also our other articles on this website:

• Why we ask for amendments on the Peabody proposal
• Peabody redevelopment: the proposal

November 17, 2011 at 2:33 pm 2 comments

Why we ask for amendments on the Peabody proposal

Author: Cyril Richert

We have commented in a previous article about the new proposal released for the redevelopment of the Peabody estate in Clapham Junction.

Peabody Trust released their first newsletter which introduces the proposal, advertises the public exhibition and the consultation website for the redevelopment of Peabody Estate, in Clapham Junction.

Beside the notable arguments in favour of the proposal (due to the new government criteria for estates, Peabody must repair/redevelop some of its estates, including Clapham Junction; a new plan will also aim to open the estate to the neighbourhood; the layout will show more diversity in term of sizes, shapes and colours for the blocks) we highlight a number of criticisms.

Points of objection:

The main criticism is obviously the size of some buildings.

1. Located at the top of the hill a 12 storey tower will appear to be about 16 storeys when viewed from Arding and Hobbs/Debenhams opposite pavement (because of the seventy foot tall hill that it sits on).

2. Near the Arding and Hobbs/Debenhams road junction a building of 16 storeys was refused in June 25th 2009. The officer’s report said that “due to its sheer size [the development] would fail to preserve the appearance of the area“. A building of 8 storeys and similar size as the directly opposite building – was later granted permission.

3. The area is inappropriate for buildings more than 5 storeys. Although the Council changed the description of the site lately, we demonstrated that the original description of the Peabody site as lying entirely outside the town centre should be retained: a scheme has to be granted for its own merit, not by using tricks to overturn the current policies.

4. Opposite the site, a 8-storey building, taller than the surrounding, was granted permission. The main merit of the scheme was to ensure the retention of the former Granada cinema but 4 years later the refurbishment of the auditorium is still await. The 8 storey development is now highly visible and obstructive from the Junction.

In an area with buildings of 3-4 storeys, the Council allowed nearly 50% more on the basis that it would bring the benefit of the refurbishment of the Granada auditorium. Now we are asked to approve another 50% increase – 12 and 10 storeys, because a 8 storeys exists already and it will benefit the much needed redevelopment of the estate. What next ? A 18 storeys because a 12 will be there, in order to compromise for example for the benefit of the much needed redevelopment of Clapham Junction station ? Do we want to carry on that trend ?

Five years ago, the area was only made of buildings of 3-4 storeys. Within a few years we are moving to 8 and now 12… while a thousand local resident expressed their disagreement against tall building in Clapham Junction just 2 years ago.

We have received personal comments from local residents, including members of Wandsworth Living Streets, the Wandsworth Society and the Battersea Society. They say:

Redevelopment is now required (the present buildings are seriously unattractive; there is an awful lot of wasted paved over space). They think the scheme is generally a distinct improvement on the first one, less cluttered looking. They do sympathise with Peabody knowing they have to make a financially viable proposal, even with a social housing project. They support the social housing objective. The Trust has to somehow make the figures add up, and they need income.

Some have concerns about the population density and the height of the buildings. Going from 5 story to 11-12 story buildings will affect the area (increased shadows and extra strain on the already over crowded foot paths and street). 12 storeys is still too tall (although much better than the previous 21). Walking down Battersea Rise from the common, the 8 storey Granada development looms above the existing streetscape in an unpleasant manner. Their proposals need some further modifications. The arguments about height with the old Granada building are very pertinent. We seem to have been left with a permanent eyesore. The 8 storeys on the Lumiere were supposedly an “exception” permitted by the Council against local opposition. There is no doubt a slippery slope could easily come into operation, permiting at some future date yet higher buildings close by. A 12-storey building could be used as the thin end of the wedge, and before we know where we are, the Council will suggest that a 16-storey building in the area would be fine, as it is not really so very different from 12.

They question the necessity of the shops as there is not much street frontage towards St John’s Hill. The estate marks a natural end of the town centre shops – so no need for any more on St John’s Hill. A bit more greenery needed, and of course permeable. There appears to be little planting to the square proposed to “green” the area. There are also some concern about trees, balance between surface and underground car parking, provision for cyclists — securing bikes, movement through the estate, provision for children’s play areas. There’s no mention of bike parking …  absolutely crucial if we want to minimise car use, pollution and congestion in the area

There is a shared concern on the future of the entrance lodge, an attractive late C19 building on the western tip of the sit in Strath Terrace – which must be a relic of the previous use of the site as an orphanage.  Should the plan be modified to allow it to be retained?

Peabody Trust has shown some understanding in its consultations. They have already changed their plan, reducing the density of the proposal by 20% and the size of some buildings consequently. We still believe that some amendments are needed in order for us to support the scheme and we will discuss the points with them during their public meetings. This should be the purpose of their consultation, before a definite submission for planning permission in early 2012.

We encourage everyone to let them know your opinion (feel free to copy us in any correspondence):

Email: clapham.development@peabody.org.uk

Post: Richard Stanway-Williams, Peabody,
45 Westminster Bridge Rd, London, SE1 7JB

The public exhibition dates are as follows:

1. Tuesday 15 November 4pm – 8pm
2. Saturday 19 November 10am – 2pm

And will be held in St Mark’s Church Hall, Boutflower Road (next to the estate).

(more…)

November 14, 2011 at 1:50 pm 6 comments

Peabody redevelopment: the proposal

Author: Cyril Richert

Peabody Trust released their first newsletter which introduces the proposals, advertises the public exhibition and the consultation website for the redevelopment of Peabody Estate, in Clapham Junction.

The existing

The existing site comprises of 351 residential dwellings with some limited community facilities, workshops and storage facilities for residents. The Estate is characterized by mid rise deck access blocks, predominantly 5 storeys in height. All blocks share the same building materials, detailing and window sizes. There are 20 blocks within the estate.

The proposal

The Peabody Trust have been liaising with Wandsworth Council and the Greater London Authority (GLA) to establish the main principles of the redevelopment. According to their website, their latest discussions with the Council are based on the proposals listed below:

• Approximately 550 mixed tenure dwellings, including  homes for the elderly;
• New community centre at the heart of the site;
• Small-scale shop/cafe/business uses fronting St John’s Hill;
• Building heights ranging from 4-12 storeys;
• High quality landscaping, new streets and public open space;
• Car parking at surface level and underground; and
• Environmental initiatives, including solar panels and combined  heat and power system to provide heating and hot water.

Images from Peabody development’s website. NO IMAGE AVAILABLE SHOWING THE IMPACT FROM DEBENHAMS LOCATION/St JOHN’S HILL

A wide range of accommodation will be provided from 1 bedroom flats to larger family housing.  A significant proportion will be for rent but there will be market sales housing as well.

A comparison with the previous proposal (September 2009)

The previous plan (a £100 million project regeneration) was also aiming to make the estate open to the surrounding community while nearly doubling the number of homes (650 flats), enlarge properties and give all residents private outdoor space (which means – in developer’s jargon – balcony).

It included several taller building along the western edge of the estate, with a 21-storey tower directly fronting St John’s Hill, along with  a 13-storey and a 10-storey building.

We met with Claire Bennie [Peabody Trust - Deputy Head of Development] on 22 January 2010 and she explained that, albeit being a non-profit organisation, they have to make the scheme pay for itself and therefore aim to maximise the density and potential of the site. Therefore the intention was to increase the density in order to be able to fund the redevelopment with the private sale of some of the properties.

However it was clear that her main concern was the planning documents produced by the Council stating that:

“Applications for buildings of 5 or more storeys will be subject to the criteria of the tall buildings policy [...] tall buildings in this location are likely to be inappropriate.”

and she specified that they would seek to clarify the guidelines with the Council.

How the Council is making things easier

We demonstrated in a previous article how the Council changed the proposed planning rules in order to allow taller building for the Peabody redevelopment.

In a nutshell, the initial planning documents (Site Specification Allocation Document 27/11/09) said:

In accordance with Core Strategy policy IS3d, tall buildings in this location are likely to be inappropriate.

In a response to last year’s Wandsworth Borough Council consultation, The Peabody Trust (Peabody)  wanted the Council to remove the wording “inappropriate“, which they claim contradicted the main policy which states that tall buildings may be appropriate in locations that are well served by public transport. However this argument was rebuffed by the government Inspector’s conclusion in last year’s examination that only sites within town centres, focal points of activity and Nine Elms near Vauxhall may be appropriate for tall building and this did not extend to all ‘areas with good public transport accessibility’.

Therefore the Council tried to ease the case for Peabody and overturned the Inspector’s argument by changing the boundary of the town centre in order to include part of the estate (where most of the tall buildings are planed).

The final proposed SSAD says:

The part of the [Peabody] site within the town centre is identified as being sensitive to tall buildings, whilst on the southern part of the site adjacent to Wandsworth Common they are likely to be inappropriate.

I let you appreciate the difference between the words “sensitive” and “inappropriate“.

Shall we support the proposal?

Arguments in favour of the proposal are:

1. Seven years ago, the government created a series of criteria defining a minimum standard for estates. Peabody identified 4 estates were they thought it could be better to redevelop rather than to repair, and Clapham Junction is one of them (the estate was constructed in 1936 and modernised in the 1970s. 13 years ago they replaced the windows).
2. Instead of large wall (ranging from 2m – 4 m height) around its perimeter, the proposal aims at opening it up to make it easier to navigate. They also plan shop/cafe/business uses fronting St John’s Hill
3. Instead of all blocks sharing the same building materials, detailing and window sizes the proposal design suggests different sizes, shapes and colours for the blocks.

Criticisms

The main criticism is obviously the size of some buildings. Located at the top of the hill a 12 storey tower will appear to be about 16 storeys when viewed from Arding and Hobbs/Debenhams opposite pavement (because of the seventy foot tall hill that it sits on).

Near the Arding and Hobbs/Debenhams road junction a building of 16 storeys was refused in June 25th 2009. The officer’s report said that “due to its sheer size [the development] would fail to preserve the appearance of the area“. After the Committee meeting,  the chair commented: “There is scope for a taller building [than 5 storey - note from CJAG] here but it must respect its immediate surroundings and the properties around it.“

The area is inappropriate for tall buildings. The Council changed the description of the site last year as we demonstrated to the government inspector a few weeks ago and we argued that the original description of the Peabody site as lying entirely outside the town centre should be retained: a scheme has to be granted for its own merit, not by using tricks to overturn the current policies.

The Council has already allowed the development of a 8 storey building facing Peabody (Lumière apartments) 4 years ago, despite the area now being regarded as inappropriate to buildings of more than 5 storey and the opposition of local residents. The main merit of the scheme was to ensure the retention of the former Granada cinema (planning application 2007/5242). Years after the beginning of the construction, and while luxury flats of 1-2 bedrooms are currently advertised for £500k, the refurbishment of the auditorium is still await!

In an area inappropriate for buildings of more than 5 storeys, the Council allowed 8 on the basis that it was not much more, and would bring the benefit of the refurbishment of the auditorium (a nice trick, but the developers are not eager to achieve that now that they are selling their flats). Now we are asked to approve 12 and 10 storeys, because a 8 storey exists already and it will benefit the much needed redevelopment of the estate. What next ? A 18 storey because a 12 will be there, in order to compromise for example for the benefit of the much needed redevelopment of Clapham Junction station ?

We acknowledge that in the past the Peabody Trust has always been willing to engage with the local residents. They have already changed their plan, reducing the density of the proposal by 20% and the size of some buildings consequently. Their plan shows already a number of improvements.

Shall we support the current proposal on the basis that it could be worse, and that’s better than nothing? Or shall we say that this is better, but we are not there yet and it will need some adjustment in order to gain the support of the community?

A redevelopment of Peabody will happen because of the new series of criteria defining a minimum standard for estates set by the government. The quality of the scheme, the integration with the surrounding areas and its consequences on future developments will depend on our acceptance.

* * *

The public exhibition dates are as follows:

1. Tuesday 15 November 4pm – 8pm
2. Saturday 19 November 10am – 2pm

And will be held in St Mark’s Church Hall, Boutflower Road (next to the estate).

November 8, 2011 at 12:39 pm 5 comments