Progress on Falcon Road hotel: new application with size reduction

Author: Cyril Richert

We received an update from Tim Glass, the developer, on the hotel for the Woburn site, 155 Falcon Road.

I am writing to update you on the progress at 155 Falcon Road. The general situation is that we are struggling on, but, as I am sure you can appreciate, it’s tough getting any scheme off the ground at present (especially obtaining funding). However, unless some other obstacle is put before us, we are still clinging onto the prospect of opening in time for the 2012 Olympics.

Apart from this, I wanted to let you know that we are having to make a further planning application to address some minor amendments that we want to make to our proposals. In summary, these are:-

  • We need to take down the existing frame which we were proposing to keep (and that’s all that we were keeping!)
  • This will actually allow us to reduce the overall height of the building by 950mm and to re-arrange the interior space so that the same plan/floor area can be used more efficently, including the creation one additional room per upper floor (ie the building is to be no larger -and infact a little less tall)
  • There will be minor adjustments to the fenestration to accomodate the above

I had hoped that such minor variations could have been dealt with by the Council without another full application, but evidently, this is not the case.

I am attaching a copy of a letter that we will be distributing to the residents at Mossbury Road early next week, to keep them informed and I think it is pretty self explanatory.

Incidently, the advice that we have from the builders, that we have approached, is that the entirely new build proposal will actually take less time to complete than we had anticipated for the approved scheme. I can’t make a firm commitment on the length of the construction period, as building contracts always have the capacity to take longer than planned, but indications are 10- 11 months and this includes the residential building, which is to be built at the same time.

I know that you had your reservations about the height previously, and I hope that you will welcome the marginal reduction in height (950mm) that is now propose, but, this aside, I am sure that you recognise the benefits of this development- in terms of a good quality new building, providing a much needed facility, as well as the contribution that it will make to the local economy. The way things are, I don’t think that there is the prospect of any other major developments taking place at Clapham Juction for a good many years. I hope that we can deliver this one.

First of all, we must thank Tim Glass for providing such update on the situation. We have already commented in the past on the pros and cons of the scheme which has been granted by the Council without much debate.

We still think that the building should have been reduced by 1 floor (or 3 meters). Economic viability was an argument put against any more downsizing, but the proof of the alteration above shows that it was possible to reduce the height with a similar number of rooms. In addition the increase in rooms (10%) will mean an increase in the need for servicing and therefore potential disturbance for the neighbourhood.

However we also thought that the overall scheme was good and the small size reduction is going in the right way and therefore very much welcomed. In addition this is another good news to see that the plan to develop the hotel is progressing (although delayed slightly by the new application); the builders advising that the new application means also that the building is faster to complete will also make shorter the period of disturbance in the neighbourhood during the construction phase.

Leaflet distributed in the area to publicize the new application can be downloaded HERE.

UPDATE 22 Dec 2010: We received an email from the developer who commented that 7 extra rooms aren’t going to make a significant difference to any activity etc that a hotel of 70 rooms would create (and I don’t think this would be unreasonable or indeed detrimental to the existing residents anyway). For example they won’t mean any extra visits for deliveries or collections of refuse/supplies or maintenance vehicles etc.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s