There has been various interesting discussions recently in the newspaper about the impact of tall building (very very tall buildings I mean!) on London skyline.

In early March, Rowan Moore, the Observer’s architecture critic, organised a panel discussion about the pros and cons of London’s increasing number of tall buildings.

Despite the recession, London is in the grip of a tall building frenzy. Driven by foreign money, ego and the pressure to build homes and offices, towers are being approved and constructed at a staggering rate. London Bridge is already home to Europe’s tallest and soon the South Bank and Vauxhall will be rivaling the City as serious high rise hubs.

Is our planning system working? [A question that many are currently wondering in Wandsworth!] Are tall buildings blighting London’s skyline? According to the Guardian’s article, most of the audience didn’t think so at the beginning; more did by the end.

A handy graphic showing how London’s skyline is changing

The Journalist wrote (words in bold are my own highlight):

“No one had a good word for the towers now planned and in some cases rising on the south bank of the Thames, mostly containing flats sold to overseas speculators, many of which will no doubt remain empty.

For me the architectural point is that tall buildings are more visible than others and therefore should reach higher standards of design, which is not happening. There is also a political point, as the current spate of tower proposals represents the triumph of financial speculation over most environmental considerations. Is this really what we want?“

The Walkie Talkie building view from St Katherine’s docks, and it’s impact on Ten Trinity Square (a building dated 1922 which played host to the inaugural meeting of the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1946). The Walkie-Talkie tower has upset Unesco and been called ‘brutally dominant’ by English Heritage

I read an article about the Walkie Talkie from Rafael Viñoly. It says:

“Viñoly is indifferent to the criticism, though, seeming to enjoy the controversy his project has created. [...] He is untroubled by the extent of Rees’s [note: chief planner of London, who has presided over its bold, vertical evolution since 1985] powers: “You can say it’s a form of absolutism, but at least you have someone to blame, for the good and the bad. If Louis XIV hadn’t been the king, then Paris wouldn’t have happened – right?”"

I really hope that Mr Viñoly has not the same knowledge in history as he’s got in architecture. Paris was not built by Louis XIV (rather the opposite, he decided to avoid that city and set up in Versailles) and part of Paris architecture has been transformed in the 19th century by Baron Haussmann under Napoleon III.

And regarding heritage buildings Mr Viñoly couldn’t less care saying:

“The view from the Tower is already ruined – would it be logical to demolish all of the visible modern buildings?”

When things are bad, there is no need to seek to improve them.

A view that is shared by Wandsworth planning as the Assistant Director for Planning said last autumn (regarding 102-104 High Street, p.a. 2012/3666) that the existing building sets a precedent for height and bulk, which seems to imply that an application for a new building is acceptable if it is no worse than that presently there.

Coming soon also the “Cheesegrater” (Leadenhall building) although the current video does not show that it will be half blighted by the then fully erected Walkie Talkie!

See also a series of photos from the Daily Mail showing how the skyline of London has changed within the last 2 years.

Where is the vision for London’s skyline is wondering Simon Jenkins in his article in the Evening Standard on April 30th?

First, Simon Jenkins is right to remember the broken promise of Boris Johnson at at time when was running for Mayor of London in 2008. In November 2008 it was actually one of our first article on this website: Mr Johnson had warned he will not approve skyscrapers if residents are opposed to them, confirmed he will redraw the planned skyline as a matter of priority and called Ken Livingston’s plans’ “phallocratic towers”.

His U-turn will be his legacy to London. You can vote him out, but a long time after he’s left you will still see the Walkie Talkie, the Helter Skelter, the Razor (the Strata tower, named ugliest building of the year in 2010) or the Cheesegrater in the sky of London!

Simon Jenkins wrote:

“Johnson wants towers everywhere. He wants them looming over Victoria, Euston and Waterloo. He wants them over North Kensington, Brentford and Battersea. Above all, he wants them along the banks of the Thames, not so much a row of pepper-pots as an entire table-top of condiments. [...]

Though the Mayor is supposedly responsible for high buildings, he appears to have allowed the planning ministers, Eric Pickles and Nick Boles, to upstage him. The developments have been pushed through after lobbying by the developers, on the grounds that Lambeth councillors are in favour. These poverty-stricken south London councils are approving everything that comes their way as a result of so-called “section 106” deals.

These deals involve developers offering token numbers of “affordable homes” in their towers or, more usually, giving the councils cash to spend elsewhere. Southwark has garnered £70?million in such payments for allowing unlimited towers further downstream. Because the Government will not pay for social housing in the normal way, it encourages such bribes to distort normal planning considerations. [...]

In most great world cities there is someone in an office somewhere — such as a planner employed by the Mayor — who has a vision for the city skyline that he can share with the world. It embraces how renewal should take place and where, what views should be guarded, where highly visible structures should go and not go. On that basis people can debate, argue and forge a compromise.

In London there is no such person and no such vision. The Mayor has none. “

Although the section 106 has mostly been replaced by the CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy, read at the bottom HERE), the purpose is similar.

You can read our article: Section 106 dictating our landscape

In our latest conversation (March 2013) with the architects contacted by Delancey last autumn about the redevelopment of Clapham Junction station (for producing a high level feasibility study to assist their client in assessing the scheme) we were told that they were still waiting for the client to come back to them. They have agreed to arrange a meeting to talk about their project, as soon as they have more information from their client.

AHMM has been appointed by Metro Shopping Fund (MSF/Delancey – the owner of the site) to carry out a study to assess the feasibility of development at Clapham Junction station.

Officially they were hired to “look at potential development options for Clapham both in terms of minimal improvement and wider redevelopment of the site“. However when I talked to one of their architect, he mentioned the “complex and high potential of the site“, which does not sound like a simple clean up of the current shopping gallery!

Below is one of their latest plan for a 27 storey tower at Stratford, east London.

Plans to expand a mosque topped off with a dome will not be enough to fulfill demand, fear neighbouring residents.

An image of the mosque plans in Falcon Road, Battersea

The trust in charge of the Battersea Mosque, in Falcon Road, Battersea, want to extend worship areas and create a dome with a pinnacle.

The planning application also describes excavation to the basement for additional prayer rooms, new staircases and a new disabled lift.

The proposed Mosque will measure 777 sq m, which will expand the floor area by 44 per cent.

Sometimes there are up to 400 men at a time using the building, while women use the adjacent Islamic Culture and Education Centre for worship.

The application document stated: “The main objective is to extend the existing worship areas and to improve the entrance and circulation routes which at present are limited and are not viable for the large numbers of people and children using the building.”

Critics fear the building, which was originally a house, is far too small for the numbers of worshippers already visiting the mosque.

Cyril Richert, of the Clapham Junction Action Group, said: “My view is a mosque with a dome, some minarets, is perfectly fine and is good to characterise the building.

“But you can imagine something like that with a big area on some greenery and some trees like other churches in the area.

“They are making two basements in order to make more space, they are just digging down in order to make rooms – it is a bit crazy.”

Liz Walton, chairman of the Battersea Society, said it would be more suitable for the Mosque to find a larger property in Battersea.

She said: “The real problem is that the use of the Mosque has outgrown the suitability of this site as a place of worship and community activity for the numbers now attending.

“On Fridays the use of the Mosque increases traffic delays around this section of Falcon Road.”

A planning applications committee is expected to make a decision on April 11.

The planning application has been refused by Wandsworth Council, as reported in our article HERE.

On Tuesday, April 16th, was organised the Planning Forum at Wandsworth Borough Town Hall. You will find below some comments and feedback. As usual, they do not intend to replace any minutes.

Pubs Protection Policy

The topic was added to the agenda by Dale Ingram, CAMRA‘s member, representing the local resident group which campaigned against the proposal to redevelop the site of the current Castle Pub in Battersea High Street.

Wandsworth Borough Council (WBC) policy is that there is no need to protect/maintain pubs when already one other exist with 400m (considered as walking distance). The Castle Pub Campaign group said that central government is currently moving to protect pubs (making a difference within the A3/A4 categories). Someone said that it must depend on density instead.

Assistant director for planning, Ms Manshanda, explained that at the end of the day it was a question of economic viability. When there is a demand, a pub will stay. But Dale Ingram said this is not true as everyone knows that the issue is the cost of renting premises and the cost pubs are buying beers etc…

Councillor King (who was chairing the meeting in the absence of Cllr Cuff) questioned whether Wandsworth Council should be promoting alcoholic drinking in the light of recent surveys. The problem raised by CAMRA was cheap alcohol being sold as lost leaders in supermarkets.

Nick Evans from Friends of Putney Common (FoPC) asked if it was possible to have a list of the pubs that must be protected in the Borough and Ms Manshanda said that they can provide a list of A3/A4 premises (not very helpful, there are 1000s!)

Register of Community Assets

The Castle pub is the first (and only, currently) registration as as an Asset of Community Value under the Localism Act in WBC.

Regarding the Castle pub, Ms Manshanda confirmed that there are rumours that they don’t want to sell (therefore the astronomic price tag of £2.25m, having paid sellers Young’s Brewery just £1.1m in 2011). And in addition the developers have just appealed (a few days ago) against the decision to refuse them the 5 storey building.

Local Plan

The revised Local Plan was due to go before the Overview of strategic and Transportation committee on April 23rd.

After the adoption of the London plan, WBC is meant to review and amend its current local plan. Consultation period for residents is 17th May – 28th June. Any objection requires evidence based. Martin Howell and his team will be available from 17th May if Societies/large groups want to organise meetings for them to explain the changes.

On of the main change is on targets for affordable housing (targets set by London); but there was also the occasion to update the current documents with changes in the Borough (in term of new developments) that have happened since 2009.

There are track changes on the website: new parts are in red, removed parts are with strikes through.

New documents to be reviewed can be downloaded here (item 7. on the page).

Protected views in the borough

There will also be a consultation on local views (see our previous article in December 2012). The document has been re-drafted with a shorter list of views and more explanations have been added on what need to be protected in the pictures.

Neighbourhood Planning

It seems to really only apply to rural areas. Putney/Diador Road residents have looked at the requirements but came to the conclusion that it was not appropriate. Surrey Lane and Winstanley groups asked WBC to become a Neighbourhood forum. They were both refused as they did not meet the requirement: they first need to apply to be registered as a neighbourhood area before to apply for a forum (according to Martin Howell, the procedure is clearly described on the website).

Ms Manshanda confirmed her previous comments that in her view it benefits more to rural area than to urban area. A Neighbourhood Plan will have to show at least the same housing target as WBC,(i.e. 1145/year for the next 5 years) and those target are very high (set by London).

Major Infrastructure Schemes

Northern Line: the possibility to extend to CJ has been protected but there is no budget/consideration currently.

Changes in Planning Legislation – permitted development

Property extensions: WBC raised concerns and would have objected. But the House of Common voted against Opt Out possibilities yesterday (as reported by BBC said T Cronin) so not possible. The Secretary of States for Community, Mr Pickles, is going to try to find a compromise between Lord/Common houses.

A.O.B.

Ram Brewery (asked by someone from the WandSoc)

Ms Manshanda said they received a lot of representations from residents. She added that it looks unlikely to be presented before the Planning Application Committee before July 2013.

She made 2 noticeable comments:

1- The Design review panel has been consulted at the pre-application level and there is no plan to consult further. Facing the protest from Monica Tross (Battersea Society) she said that it will be up to Cllr Cuff to decide whether there is another review (Cllr King confirmed that it will be up to Cllr Cuff with the advice of the planners – who are against it apparently!).

2- Regarding the Wandsworth Conservation Area Advisory Committee (WCAAC) meeting, Ms Mashanda said the WCAAC had mixed views and a minority was in favour of the scheme! That’s seeing a very positive outcome of a meeting where only 3 out of 8 people talked in favour of the scheme, and that the vote decided that the WCAAC was going to object against the development!

State of consultation

Nick from FoPC complained about the poor condition in the Planning Application Committee room. Ms Manshanda said new microphones have been ordered.

Julia Macham said that the comments left using the facilities of the comment box on the website are very poor (all displayed on 1 line, no name on the list). Martin Howell said he will look at it and that should be corrected.

Are the letter sent to planning officers to be responded? Tim Cronin said that they always answer the first letter. When another response come saying they disagree, they have nothing to say more but that they disagree too so do not answer. Cllr King agreed that at least an acknowledgement should be sent.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

The question was: “Why minor domestic applications, for dormer windows for example, required to be accompanied by a CIL form which is not relevant to minor works such as extension dormers, etc?”

And the answer: Because otherwise an officer needs to check. It is time consuming for them, they have limited resources. If not necessary it is not forwarded to the CIL team. Cyril asked if a simple check box “not necessary” or such thing wouldn’t be more efficient for both parties. Answers was: well it’s not that hard to fill the form and save time for us as it is.

Are images using a wide angle camera acceptable?

Basically it gives a good idea of what will be the defence of the Council (we summarise the outcome of the decision, that was not discussed specifically in this order):

1. When they receive an application they put everything on the website (i.e.e they accept all materials). Then they check and if they think some images are not correct they ask the developers to provide others.
2. They used the images provided by the developers – whether correct or incorrect – in the planning publicity form, because they want the consultation to start asap and the public needs to have a view of what is proposed.
3. In the policy they use the word can, which means that they consider that some wide lens view can be accurate to what a human eye will see, so therefore acceptable.
4. For the Ram Brewery they received a set of verified views
5. Ms Manshanda CERTIFIED that views for the RB have been verified and accurate to human eye.

CJAG has therefore written to Ms Manshanda asking confirmation of the policy and to arrange a meeting to be able to check the certified view as soon as possible (see the letter HERE).

Next meeting: 4th June 2013

Wandsworth Planning Application committee has refused, on Thursday 11th April 2013, the proposal to extend and refurbished the Mosque in Falcon Road.

By 8 votes to 1 (Cllr Billi Randall who thought that the principle of redevelopment was more or less agreed in 2010) following a successful motion to refuse, the planning permission 2012/3747 for the Islamic Centre, 75 Falcon Road was refused on the following grounds:

1. The proposed extensions by virtue of their increased size and siting would introduce unacceptable bulk to the property and the streetscene of the location to the detriment of their visual amenity. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to Policy IS3 of the Wandsworth Core Strategy 2010 and Policy DMS1 of the Wandsworth DMPD 2012.
2. The proposal would result in the unacceptable intensification of an already intensively used site, resulting in a harmful increase in noise levels and general disturbance when accessing and leaving the facility during peak times, while failing to demonstrate that the transport impacts of the development could be managed satisfactorily without resulting in an unacceptable impact on the local highway network. As such, the proposal is considered contrary to Policies DMS1 and DMT1 of the Wandsworth DMPD 2012.

The decision goes against the recommendation of the officers that we reported at the bottom of our previous article: Proposal to refurbish and extend the Mosque in Falcon Road.

It follows the main reasons (1. Scale and Design) for objection raised by the Clapham Junction Action Group.

Following a meeting that we attended a few weeks ago with local Councillors and people from the Mosque, it was said that in case of refusal, they would pursue with the granted application that they have from 2010 (ref: 2010/4850).

However, conditions apply, including that work shall begin with 3 years from the date of this permission, i.e. 18 February 2011. The money raised for the plan is currently only covering half of the cost (estimated to be about £300k) and time is running out. A new application will have to be submitted if nothing moves by 2014.

See below a drawing of the 2010/4850 proposal that was approved in February 2011.

Paris-based practice atelier Zundel Cristea (AZC) has won the competition (results announced mid-March 2013) to transform the Battersea power station into a museum. The proposal is based on the Parisian Cité de l’Architecture model, and will present a panorama of architecture and cultural heritage from the Middle Ages to today.

The most notable feature of the project is the integration of a giant roller coaster in the 40,000 sqm of the site, providing a new perspective to the area and the city of London.On their website they explain:

Our project puts the power station on centre stage, the structure itself enhancing the site through its impressive scale, its architecture, and its unique brick material. Our created pathway links together a number of spaces for discovery: the square in front of the museum, clearings, footpaths outside and above and inside, footpaths traversing courtyards and exhibition rooms. The angles and perspectives created by the rail’s pathway, through the movement within and outside of the structure, place visitors in a position where they can perceive simultaneously the container and its contents, the work and nature. They come to participate in several simultaneous experiences: enjoying the displayed works, being moved by the beauty of the structure and the city: river, park, buildings.

Will it ever be implemented? Or will it be another addition to the one presented in 2010 and the tower proposal in 2008 after previous owner Treasury Holdings UK, was been put under administration in 2011 and the site bought by aMalaysian consortium, comprising S P Setia, Sime Darby and the Employees Provident Fund?

Is it serious? Currently there is no word on the Battersea Power station’s website… the redevelopment, designed by Raphael Vinoly, is still expected to be completed by 2016 and some flats have already been sold.

More details HERE.

Although the official period of consultation ended on 18th March, late comments will still be valid and considered until the planning officer publishes its report, and even until the Planning Committee meets.

The Clapham Junction Action Group has sent an objection that you can download HERE.

In a nutshell, our letter made the following considerations:

In 2008 the Wandsworth Society fought against the joint plans of The Council and the developers Minerva during the inquiry into the Ram Brewery development.  The Secretary of State Eric Pickles acknowledged that the Society and all local residents and groups who objected were right to do so and followed the recommendation of the government inspector to refuse the scheme.

1. A skyscraper at the Ram Brewery site is unsound and detrimental to the area

All the criticisms in the inspector’s report are equally valid for this scheme:

• Huge differences in character, size, mass, scale and appearance;
• Little consideration given to the impact of the development on the existing small-scale buildings;
• Clear harm to the character and heritage of the area;
• Dramatic and negative changes to the character of the existing skyline by the new buildings, and particularly the proposed tower.   This will utterly dominate the scene, changing the local town’s character and undermining the quality of the surrounding area.

2. The proposal is in breach of the local policy

2.1. Once again, images provided by the developer ignore government criticisms and local guidelines

All the images re-used in brochures to illustrate the proposal to the public are in contradiction to the inspectors’ recommendation of NOT using wide angles that distort perspectives. They are in breach of The WBC Development Management Policies Document saying that visual assessments will be required to accurately represent what would be seen by the human eye and that the use of wide-angle lenses will not be acceptable (para 2.49 page 23).

2.2. The developers provide statements that contradict the policies

In policies (SSAD), the site is sensitive to tall buildings. We therefore have difficulty in understanding how the scheme can be acceptable, since most of the buildings are more than five storeys and in one case SEVEN times that height. How can this be acceptable?

Applications for tall buildings will be required to address a list of 15 criteria in order to demonstrate compliance with Core Strategy Policies IS3d and IS3e. In theory, each single building above the 5 storey limit set out in the SSAD should have to comply with ALL the criteria. We have gone through the list for the whole site, we find that not only does it fail on the main criteria… but also that most attempts to justify the massing and tall buildings of the development are flawed.

Additionally, we support the comments made by the Wandsworth Society in their letter dated 18^th March 2013. You can read their objections HERE, and to quote them:

“We reiterate [that we support] the regeneration of the Ram Brewery site but not in the way proposed by the current developers who have disregarded planning policies. We have shown that there is another approach to a successful redevelopment of the site which would be much more respectful and sympathetic to the scale of the town centre, in line with policy.”

It is still time to send your message to Wandsworth Council. You can send a letter by post, write an email or even post directly online using the comment box on the Planning portal.

Ref: Planning Application 2012/5286 – Ram Brewery

Toby Feltham
The Planning Service
Wandsworth Council
The Town Hall
Wandsworth High Street
London SW18 2PU
planningapplications@wandsworth.gov.uk

In order to be more effective, you may send your message to:

• us, CJAG (post it in our contact box)

• your local councillors (especially if they approved the previous flawed plan!)

• members of the planning committee (by asking your letter to be forwarded to each member of the planning application committee):

• Cllr Nick Cuff (Chair): ncuff@wandsworth.gov.uk
• Support officer: Ms. Ozu Okere: ookere@wandsworth.gov.uk

• Jane Ellison, Battersea MP: jane.ellison.mp@parliament.uk

Here are a series of drawing from the developer documents (with no use of wide-angle view or nice flowers and people smiling all along):

And if you want to know more about the proposal, you can read our other articles:

• Ram Brewery: a list of reasons for objection
• Ram Brewery: still many reasons to object
• Is the Ram Brewery already approved by Council before even the consultation?

UPDATE 05/04/2013:

The Battersea Society has objected (you can download and read HERE) as well as the Putney Society (you can download and read HERE) and the Wandle Valley Forum(you can download and read HERE).

On the planning portal there is currently 179 objections (way above the hundred objections received for the previous application), 21 supports and 4 general comments.

On the 19th February, Battersea MP Jan Ellison organised a meeting at Providence House to discuss the plans for the extension of the Falcon Road Mosque. Representatives of the mosque presented their plans to an audience of about 50 people and local concerns were expressed.

The proposal (2012/3747) is labelled as:

Excavation basement to form additional prayer room. Demolition of entrance porch, and construction of a front extension, a front staircase extension, and a new side/rear extension at first and second floor levels creating an office and rear staircase; residential unit on first floor converted into worship area; new dome and minarets to roof.

Consultation period ended 27th December but the plan is still under consideration (the public meeting was organised in February) and there is no date yet for final decision. It is therefore still time for comments.

After consideration of the proposal, CJAG decided to object on the ground of:

1. Scale and Design

The existing Mosque is clearly in need of refurbishment and an upgrade. It is however of a similar scale and size to other buildings on Falcon Road. The new proposals are for a significantly larger building (an increase in size of 44%) which will be taller and will have a larger footprint, especially at the front of the building. Although this new design is to allow for larger capacity no thought has been given to parking and other local congestion issues.

In addition to the size, there is also a proposal to incorporate minarets and a large dome (covering most of the roof) at the top of the building. Although we are not against a Mosque and appreciate the benefits of some architectural elements to characterise the building, the scale of the proposal will significantly change the character of the road, in clear contrast with the rest of the area.

2. Parking and traffic congestion

Numerous local residents have commented on the current problems from visitors to the Mosque causing major parking and congestion problems around the site. The new design proposal has nothing in it to reduce these local pressures and therefore the inevitable increase in visitor numbers can only make them worse.

 3. Safety

The new proposals will reduce the space at the front of the building for people to congregate increasing the likelihood of people blocking pavements and spilling into the road at peak times.

4. Noise and Litter

There has been no mention of how the new Mosque will handle the general noise and disruption from large numbers of people gathering in one small place.

5. Falcon Grove Residents

A lack of attention to consulting with and taking into consideration the needs of the people living in the immediate vicinity of the Mosque can only increase local tensions which is far from ideal for such a culturally sensitive planning application.

In addition, we have studied the objection and support letters on The Wandsworth planning site with interest. It is clear that there is significant objection from local residents living in the immediate vicinity of the site. There are no letters of support until the period from 15 February and most of these letters of support are from Mosque users who do not live in the immediate vicinity. We believe that focus should be given to the wishes and concerns of the local people who live alongside the Mosque, especially those who will not be using the centre but who will have to live with the consequences of its expansion.

In conclusion we agree with the Battersea Society (you can read their objection HERE) and other local residents that the real issue is the growth of users of the Mosque beyond the capacity of the small site; the only suitable proposal is to look to move the site of the Mosque to a location where suitable planning can be made for parking and a larger building.

View of the current Islamic Centre with the additional elements set in the proposal.

You can download and read our full objection HERE.

If you want to comment on the proposal, all details are:

Ref: Planning Application 2012/3747 – Mosque

Ms. Gemma Bristow
The Planning Service
Wandsworth Council
The Town Hall
Wandsworth High Street
London SW18 2PU
planningapplications@wandsworth.gov.uk

In addition, in order to be more effective, you may copy your message to:

• us, CJAG (post it in our contact box)

• members of the planning committee (by asking your letter to be forwarded to each member of the planning application committee):

• Cllr Nick Cuff (Chair): ncuff@wandsworth.gov.uk
• Support officer: Ms. Ozu Okere: ookere@wandsworth.gov.uk

• Jane Ellison, Battersea MP: jane.ellison.mp@parliament.uk

UPDATE 04/04/2013: The Planning Officer recommends to APPROVE

Author: Cyril Richert

With disappointment but unfortunately no surprise (Wandsworth planners have got a record to approve plans with no consideration for consultation and local communities) the planning officer has published her report yesterday recommending approval (read HERE).

There was no mention on the level of support coming from all over the country but the local area. The report considers that (quotes from the report):

• new amendments (dome, moon, frontage) should not have adverse effect beside the pair of grade II listed Victorian houses;
• despite the increase in size the dome (in comparison to 2010 approved planning permission) should not be unduly prominent;
• the adjacent properties are 2 storey buildings and the Islamic centre is 3 storeys, and will become 4 storeys;
• the additional second floor would add to bulk and massing of the building, hard onto the pavement which would make the building more dominant; nevertheless it should be acceptable;
• while the application building is clearly unlike any other in the area, the proposed extension could be accommodated;
• given the current state of the building, it could be argued that the works will improve the appearance of the street scene;
• the increase space would still fail to accommodate the total number of worshippers;
• transportation officers consider that the proposed substantial increase in floorspace may result in larger attendances becoming more frequent, therefore a travel plan will be requested;
• it is disappointing and not in compliance with policy DMT2 that the applicant has not proposed any cycle storage;
• observations indicate that a greater number of people arrive by car than in other (similar) Mosques;
• the justification for the application has been to cater for existing worshippers rather than accommodate additional ones. However this cannot be guaranteed (and there is the likelihood that the increase of size will increase the attendance).

Conclusion of the planner: many issues, and the future might be clouded, but fingers crossed it should be fine!

The application will be decided by the Planning Application Committee on April 11th 2013.

Although we did not make a specific article to mark the 150th anniversary of Clapham Junction Station (as it opened on 2 March 1863), we mentioned the date in a previous article.

Although South West Train, which manages the station, told us previously that they had not planned any specific happening, Mr Jake Kelly, Customer Service Director for South West Trains, made a speech to highlight the importance of Clapham Junction Station.

You will read some reports on Cllr James Cousins’ blog (he made a speech too) with a photo of a few people dressed up in Victorian outfits.