Comments for Clapham Junction Action Group

Comment on A new bridge for Battersea by Ian Hyatt

Ian Hyatt — Tue, 14 May 2013 18:24:29 +0000

What a great idea, this will enable much more access to Fulham and Chelsea…

Ian. 15 years in Battersea area.

Comment on Ram Brewery: a list of reasons for objection by Cyril Richert

Cyril Richert — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:37:10 +0000

For CJAG the things are simple: back in 2008 a few people raised objection to the twin towers scheme, and they received the support of hundreds within only a few months. Since then CJAG has always been supported by hundred of local residents, as it was shown several time on reaction to planning proposals.

In addition, unlike some other bodies (for instance some meeting given by the Council behind closed doors, or – I reckon – some local groups) we are transparent and communicate about all our actions and report on all meetings we took part in.

For the Battersea Power Station, touché! My mistake in the comment (I see Qatar everywhere nowadays ) as it was reported here: http://cjag.org/2013/04/08/a-roller-coaster-for-battersea-power-station/
You will notice that although REO wanted a huge tower back in 2008, there is no tower in the plan that is meant to be implemented.

Regarding the need for profit, maybe Minerva bought the site too expensive… maybe it is the fault of the Council that made them believe that they could build whatever they want without any problem. If the Council had a proper policy, prices of the land would have been proportionate of the possibilities/potential of the site. It is not the resident to bear the consequence of some foolish decision.

I have no problem actually with the fact that some people like the current plan. We still thin – here at CJAG but also with the Wandsworth Society and others – that people have not been properly informed and mislead with distorted images to hide the real impact.
If you do like the plan, please say it, and you are always welcome here to comment with your arguments

Comment on Ram Brewery: a list of reasons for objection by Paul

Paul — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:16:28 +0000

Re majorities I agree, apathy is punished and the vocal are heard. My experience with for example the Tonsley Residents however is that they are a small clique who knee jerk reject anything being built at all, especially if its tall. Nobody voted for them. They are self appointed spokesman for an area where many people don’t know if they exist. Whether that is true of the CJAG I don’t know? Did anybody vote for you?mwe have an elected council, assembly and government. Personally I am happy that the decision is in their hands rather than unelected self appointed representatives who clearly are not democrats.

Battersea has been bought by Malaysian investors. Unlike the Qataris they actually need to make a profit. The Shard is losing money but the Qataris don’t care, it is simply a vanity project, albeit a rather fine one in my opinion, and yes it’s a tall building. It remains to be seen whether Battersea gets built but what is certain is it won’t without a massive government subsidy for the tube development. Only that way can the Malaysians be sure that they can turn a profit on what could be a huge upturn in property prices in that area. If that ripples out Minerva will be happy to sell and move on.

Minerva very nearly went bust during the banking crisis. They have plenty of other projects and if they suffer further liquidity problems you can be sure they will sell the Brewery site and move on. This is perhaps what you want. So that any new buyer will develop ‘sensibly’ which really means a neo Georgian complex of dull housing that you happen to like.

Personally I like their plans as they are. I like the potential influx of quality retailers and restaurateurs. I like the public space. And I like the huge transport subsidy for WT. judging by much of the comments above im not the only one.

Alongside the revamped Southside and work along Garrett Lane this would be a great start for this area.

I do bot mean to harass you on this four but please realise there are people in WT with this view. Please consider what would be acceptable to you. 20 storeys? 25? Minerva quite simply cannot develop this site without a tower and still turn a profit. If the council were for example to build a new park,on the site, fantastic. But at present Minerva seem to be the only show in town, they do after all own the site. We do have property rights in this country at least for now.

Comment on Ram Brewery: a list of reasons for objection by Cyril Richert

Cyril Richert — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 18:38:38 +0000

The same as we cannot prove that people in the idea are not in majority communists because only 35% vote… we don’t know about the other 65%.
It is just a democratic process: people who want to have a say, express themselves. The other who remain silent can’t blame the result.

The fact is currently Nine Elms is being redeveloped, which was not the case 10 years ago. And the Battersea Power Station is part of it. The fact that it has been bought by Qatary investors, unlikely to go bankrupt as the previous owner, is a bit reassuring on the future.

We all do the Ram Brewery site being redeveloped and we are also convinced that it will be developed sooner rather than later. The developer Minerva has got already consent to build part of it and they want to finish the site to get a ROI. No doubt that if this proposal fail there will be another one soon afte.
We want to see the site redeveloped but not at any price, that’s all what we ask: sensible redevelopment should be considered, with the interest of local residents, not the interest of the cash made by the investors.

Comment on Ram Brewery: a list of reasons for objection by Paul

Paul — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 17:38:31 +0000

Well neither your can prove what the majority want either way, I conceed. But vocal residents or those with time or energy get heard. Look at Battersea Power St which just rotted for decades. Somebody actually wants to do something with this site. I not mad for the tower to,be frankbutwithout it nothing gets built. I’d like something built in my lifetime. Plus a tube at Wandsworth Town, preferably on the site of that appalling roundabout. None,of this will happen without some initial development. WT is presently a backwater and you seem happy for it to stay that way?

Comment on Ram Brewery: a list of reasons for objection by Cyril Richert

Cyril Richert — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:35:32 +0000

I don’t think that CJAG, Wandsworth Soc, Tonsley Residents etc don’t actually represent the majority in this area. I think actually that they really do represent local residents and have thousands of members.
It is absolutely not true that without the tower or this scheme, the site won’t be developed. How do you know? That’s exactly what the developers said about their 16 storey hotels refused for CJ, and the year after a 8 storey building was approved.
I don’t dispute the fact that some people like/love towers. But we live in Wandsworth, why don’t they live in Croydon?

Comment on Ram Brewery: a list of reasons for objection by Paul

Paul — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 16:25:54 +0000

I understand you object to tall buildings in Wandsworth. But. Without this tall building none of the brewery site will be developed. It will rot. And eventually all be razed and then tall buildings will be built anyway. In 2013 buildings are tall, get over it. Let’s campaign for quality public space, paving, trees. Look at Singaporewhich has preserved colonial architecture, built huge towers, and planted a ton of trees. CJAG, Wandsworth Soc, Tonsley Residents etc don’t actually represent the majority in this area who want development rather than suburban decay. Please respect what the quiet majority want and go live in say Cheltnam which looks something like I think you want Wandsworth to look?

Comment on A roller coaster for Battersea Power station? by Carol R

Carol R — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 11:59:37 +0000

I think it’s quite a good idea. Think of the popularity of the Millennium Wheel. It also harks back to Vauxhall Pleasure Gardens.

Comment on Proposal to refurbish and extend the Mosque in Falcon Road by Lisa Jane

Lisa Jane — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:16:58 +0000

I have lived right opposite the Mosque for over twenty years and it has increased in numbers by 1,330%. A nominal 50% likened increase over the next 20 years will mean 4,422 people wanting to access the space at the same time. WBC has an entire section of their core strategy on sustainable development however in their recommendation is happy to state ‘The development is, therefore, considered to be balanced on the limits of acceptability.’ April 2013. 04/2014? 04/2015? Today it is on the limits – what about tomorrow? Please if anyone can come to the planning committee meeting April 11th 7.30pm to help support us try to convince the committee that people in Latchmere NOT Lancashire should have the say on this!

Comment on Proposal to refurbish and extend the Mosque in Falcon Road by Jon Irwin

Jon Irwin — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 10:41:41 +0000

Whilst the concerns regarding traffic congestion and parking are legitimate, I would be interested to know if there is any data regarding how current users of the Mosque travel there.

It may well be that if improvments can be made to the pavements, and cycle parking provision can be made then the concerns regarding motor traffic and parking will not be realised.

There is a common mis-conception held, more-often relating to town centres that car parking is essential for retailers to do business. In Tooting, over 80% of shoppers travel to Tooting town centre without using a car. In spite of this, local traders have asked for car parking charges to be reduced as they consider the smaller than 20% of shoppers that do travel by car to be of greater importance than the majority who don’t.

With 50% of car trips of only 2 miles or less, there is a lot of scope for reduction in congestion by re-allocating car parking spaces to facilitate a better local environment which makes walking/cycling short distances much more attractive than driving.