You may have heard that the Council have received a planning application to redevelop the site by Clapham Junction Station to provide residential and commercial use with a new station.
I think most people will welcome this development as it includes two new station buildings complete with ticket halls, escalators, lifts and also new shops, medical centre and a cinema.
However, the new proposal includes also the construction of 2 TOWER BLOCKS OF 42 STOREYS EACH, which will be part of the development on this site. They are, it seems, going to be bright blue and yellow in colour which will be noticed for miles around. It will look rather out of place amongst the Victorian houses, shops, Debenhams (the old Arding&Hobbs), the Grant, the former City Hall…etc.
I understand that the construction of two towers is a way of funding the regeneration of the station, as neither the Government nor Network rail wants to finance this scheme. But it’s not only a question of providing immediate money for the station. Have the Council thought out how this large complex will affect the local amenities (schools, hospitals…) and all the other various extra facilities for this large number of new residents all located in the already over busy area of Clapham Junction Station? How is it going to affect us, the neighbourhood, in terms of noise, traffic, housing market…?
If you would like to join us complaining to the Council about the project, please use one of the following
Council: Planning Application/Mark Hunter [Ref: 2008/4488]
or write to:
Planning Service – Technical Service Department
Wandsworth High Street
London SW18 2PU
Please also contact/email and let them know your concerns:
- Mayor of London, Boris Johnson: email@example.com
- Battersea MP, Martin Linton: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Email the editor, in Wandsworth Borough News: Kerry McQueeney: email@example.com
Near Putney station, the local residents have just successfully challenged the construction of towers that the Council’s planning officers described as ‘alien’ and ‘confrontation for confrontation’s sake’.