Tag Archives: 2016/5912

Leaseholder emails Council Committee about retro-fitting water sprinklers raising queries and questions

The attendance of concerned and interested parties at the Wandsworth Borough Council Housing and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee of 18 January 2018 were many, in fact, the viewing gallery was almost full.

The below email highlights meeting observations of one individual who emailed all of the Councillors who sit on this Committee.

 __________________________________________

 To: Councillor Aydin Dikerdem; Councillor Charles Lescott; Councillor Claire Clay; Councillor Ian Hart; Councillor Jane Cooper; Councillor Nick Cuff; Councillor Paul White; Councillor Stuart Thom; Councillor Sue McKinney;
Cc: Thayyiba Shaah;  Councillor Jeremy Ambache; Councillor Peter Carpenter; Scott Couldridge; Councillor Malcom Grimston;
Sent: Saturday, 20 January 2018, 17:04
Subject: Housing and Regeneration Overview and Scrutiny Committee – 18/1/18 – thoughts from the gallery

Dear Councillors,

It must have been a delight to see the gallery so full of interested individuals.

The following are 12 points which are observations (which is hoped may be of some benefit) and queries which I seek clarity on please.

Please note that many residents are ‘bcc’ into this email.

  1. By the numbers……..

Shambolic, the Councillor that asked how many leaseholders could provide a view at the First Tier Property Tribunal should have known this number, in fact, all Councillors who are on this Committee should have this information to hand. It was within Council Paper 17-269 which was submitted at this very Committee on September 14th 2017. Perhaps it might assist if the numbers were shared with you all, it was within footnote #2 which stated that“Wandsworth Council has 99 blocks of ten storeys or more containing 6,401 residential flats and maisonettes – 4,043 tenanted, 1,315

resident leaseholders and 1,043 away leaseholders”. So, this means that 2,358 leaseholders can provide a view at the First Tier Property Tribunal, not the“1,400” mentioned at this meeting.

Any Councillor with some level of interest may even wish to know per ward – how many buildings are impacted per ward, the split of leaseholders (residents and away leaseholders) along with the number of tenants. Each Councillor would, I’d like to think, have a handle on the numbers within footnote #2 and how this may be of relevance to their ward? Perhaps this is taking too much interest?

Did you know that of the “99 blocks of ten storeys or more” it seems that Allbrook House is included within this 99? Just in case you were not aware this is scheduled for demolition as part of the Alton Estate regeneration so the Council might be saving some pennies?

  1. First Tier Property Tribunal (FTPT)

One of the outcomes of this meeting was that it seemed that at least two of the Councillors on this Committee appeared to have had little idea of what this FTPT is all about. If true, how can a Councillor make such decisions involving such vast sums of funds without knowing what this FTPT is and the potential challenges the Council could face?

After the planning fiasco of the portacabins (planning application 2016/5912) through which one of the ward Councillors was to provide a representation to the Council Planning Application Committee though did not as it seems that Councillor was not aware of what delegated powers Council planning officers had, it might be prudent that Councillors receive a mandatory welcome pack explaining some aspects of what they need to know, such as what can or may not be submitted to a Planning Application Committee, or that the Council is a freeholder and leaseholders, believe or not, have rights too and what these rights are.

In any event, please find a link which provides some background as to what a FTPT is – https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-property-chamber

  1. Costs – lack of faith in Council estimates

Given that in Paper 18-12 the cost of the cladding regarding Sudbury House and Castlemaine went from £6m to £18.286m (this being the additional provision of £12.286m mentioned within this paper) then to what is the degree is there a level of confidence in the Council’s £24m allocation (Section 15, Paper 17-269) for retrofitting water sprinklers? If the costs doubled to £48m or £72m will the Council still be amenable to this endeavour?

On a much lower level, perhaps the recent example of major works for maisonettes on the Alton Estate may provide an example of why leaseholders could be sceptical of the Council’s estimates. A letter dated 20th March 2014 for “Notice of Intention – External Redecoration & Associated Repairs” was for £2,586.92. A letter only seven months later, 13th October 2014, for “External Redecoration & Associated Repairs” was for £4,864.90. That is almost double the cost within seven months. It is hoped that the Council is confident regarding the sums involved.

  1. Costs – to leaseholders

One of the 99 buildings impacted from the Manresa neighbourhood has paid the princely sum of £12,475.05 for a two bedroom flat within a 13 month period as calculated below;

2016 (paid in October 2016)

£880.00 major works

£1,152.44 for the annual service charge

2017 (paid in October 2017)

£9,446 for major works

£996.61 for the usual annual service charge

Part of the reason for regeneration in this area is due to the levels of deprivation, so how the Council thinks many of the residents in this ward  can keep emptying their pockets to pay for these works is a query that has to be posed to you?

In other words, the sum mentioned in the comment “these costs (approximately £3,000 to £4,000) will be imposed upon leaseholders with relatively short notice” (section 17, Paper 17-269) could perhaps double or triple if using the cladding increased costs as a proxy.

Referring again to section 17 within Paper 17-269 the comment “An extension beyond 48 months may draw criticism from other leaseholders facing relatively substantial bills for major works, for example in 2015/16 1,231 leaseholders were billed for major works charges in excess of £3,000” might be worth re-doing with 2016/17 in mind to focus on the costs applied to these 99 impacted buildings. 13 of the 99 impacted buildings which are on the Alton Estate have paid, or are paying, for the installation of double glazing works which means that just with this sample that circa 700 leaseholders would have easily paid over £3,000 (which the example on point 4 highlights) in service charges which stacks up heavily versus the Borough wide figure of 1,231 mentioned earlier.

Section 18 of Paper 17-269 refers to “The Council operates a service charge relief scheme in cases of hardship, with the Director of Resources having delegated authority to grant financial relief on a case by case basis, which could be accessed by a leaseholder with genuine difficulty in meeting the additional costs. This could be through offering extended payment terms to qualifying leaseholders or through a reduction in the overall amount billed as approved in Paper No.15-422”. If not familiar with the detail of this paragraph it might be a suggestion to start looking at it as there is already a lot of concern from residents regarding affording additional major work costs.

  1. Impact on tenants and leaseholders – time off work

Do not underestimate the impact of this. The very recent double glazing of the same flat referred to in section 4 has gone well beyond the two days of inconvenience that was suggested it would be.

In fact, it might be something for the Council to consider that leaseholders should recharge the Council for time off work which goes beyond the promised timescale.

  1. No challenge to Councillor Rory O’Broin regarding numbers

It was fascinating that Mr Cameron Young, the gent that provided a deputation on behalf of Edgecombe Hall Residents Association, was grilled on the numbers of leaseholders and tenants that he represented, yet no Councillor asked the same of Councillor O’Brien? It would have been interesting to understand the detail of the numbers that Councillor O’Brien was representing especially as three of the five Resident Associations mentioned in section 7 (Paper 18-12) are from St Mary’s Park.

  1. Leeds Building Society mention

The mention of Leeds Building Society not providing mortgages to tall buildings without water sprinklers needs to be taken in context. Using figures from the Council of Mortgage Lenders, this lender has 1% of the market for the value of mortgages outstanding as of 2016 and ranks 15th. Information on market share can be obtained from the following link – https://www.cml.org.uk/documents/largest-mortgage-lenders-2016/2largest-mortgage-lenders-2016.xlsx

  1. Leaseholders position understated

Section 7 of Paper 18-12 states the following – “There has been some resistance from leaseholders to date: objections have been lodged by five residents’ associations (Battersea High St RA (St Mary’s Park), Ethelburga Tower RA (St Mary’s Park), Andrew Reed House RA (West Hill), Edgecombe Hall RA (West Hill) and Totteridge House RA (St Mary’s Park)), a small number of individuals from other blocks and one non-resident indicating they were opposed to the Council’s decision to impose the retro-fitting of works and recharge leaseholders”.

It is very surprisingly that the Alton Estate, with 42 of the 99 buildings impacted, is not mentioned. Two Residents Associations have made representations, Cadnam Point and Finchdean House. Many leaseholders have made their views known to both Councillor Cooper and Councillor McKinney. The Alton Leaseholders has started largely as a reaction to retor-fitting water sprinklers, and currently has 60 out of the circa 700 leaseholders impacted with the expectation that this number will grow when more leaseholders become aware that, at present, they are to be charged for this (though first, they need to become aware of the water sprinklers situation as many are not familiar with it).

Furthermore, the Western Area Housing Panel of 11th September 2017 had a challenging debate around the topic.

In any event, thank you to Councillor Grimston for acknowledging the concerns of leaseholders from the Alton Estate during this meeting.

  1. Fire Risk Assessments

Apologies if I missed this in the various Council documents, though the Fire Risk Assessments of 2016 do not appear to have been mentioned. As Councillors, have any of you taken the time to review one of these reports?

Within them section 2.6.8 asks “Are sprinkler systems present?” and the response in the report is “Not required”. Bearing in mind that section 9 of Paper 17-269 states that “The standard Wandsworth right to buy lease gives the Council the right “to do such things as the Council may decide are necessary to ensure the efficient maintenance administration or security of the Block” and it is considered that this provision enables the Council to retro-fit sprinklers in individual leasehold flats. „Security‟ in this context includes safety, which properly and reasonably includes facilities and equipment to fight and prevent the spread of fire” this view, to a layman, would seem to be contradicted by the Fire Risk Assessment, unless the Council is not standing by the content of the Fire Risk Assessments?

  1. Borough Resident Forum (BRF) Vice Chair personal views

It is questionable whether the Vice Chair of the BRF is permitted to be providing personal views on topics discussed at this meeting. An answer on this query is requested please.

  1. BRF paper 18-11

Having taken a hard copy of the Agenda which contains various documents it is noticed that Paper 18-11 was not within it and therefore likely not read by Councillors prior to the meeting? Please confirm if this is the case and whether this should be the case?

If of interest, I have various emails which can be shared with regards to the time lag of placing the BRF papers online.

  1. Is all the information that is available being shared?

The meeting of this Committee on 14th September 2017 makes no reference to the letter dated 1st August 2017 sent by MP Justine Greening to Alok Sharma, MP for Department for Communities and Local Government, which raises the question about funding for retro-fitting water sprinklers and removal of cladding. The letter seems to have been sent on behalf of Wandsworth Council? MP Sharma responded on 3rd September 2017, which states that when Councils have an idea of what work is deemed essential that the starting position is that they should fund these measures. Perhaps more detail regarding the discussions concerning potential Government funding should be provided?

Given Papers 17-269 and 18-12 have been referred to above a few times, they have been added below for reference.

17-269 –https://democracy.wandsworth.gov.uk/documents/s52192/Update%20on%20fire%20safety%20arrangements%20in%20Wandsworth%20Councils%20housing%20stock.pdf

18-12 –

https://democracy.wandsworth.gov.uk/documents/s55013/Fire%20Safety%20Update.pdf

There may have been more points to add, and more may be added in due course, though it is hoped that the above provides some feedback which is of benefit.

_________________________________________

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

To receive blog articles as they are uploaded please ‘follow’ the blog.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

 Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Advertisements

What became of the portacabin planning application?

For background on Roehampton University’s portacabin planning applications this can be found in previous articles within this blog under variance references such as ‘portacabins’, ‘2016/1385’ or ‘2016/5912’. Many people have asked about this planning application, for various reasons whether it be what happened or how did it not go to the Council’s Planning Application Committee (PAC), and this blog is to highlight some further background which might be of interest, not just for this application, though perhaps for others.

There were three retrospective planning applications, with the first two being withdrawn.

Application number: 2015/5648

Proposal: Erection of six portacabins for a temporary period of five years.

First Council document mentioned is on 14 October 2015 and the decision notice of 19 February states this application was withdrawn on 14 February 2016.

The portacabins in question are highlighted in the photo below taken from Kimpton House. Keep an eye on the portacabins in the red rectangle. Parkstead House (Grade I listed) is in the background.

Application number: 2016/1385

Proposal: Retention of seven portacabins sited against the southern boundary for a period of three years (affecting the setting of a Grade I listed building).

Decision: Withdrawn

Notice the retention change in the proposal from five years to three years, though the number of portacabins increased from six to seven?

This application was started on 15 March 2016, only a month after application 2015/5648, though was able to continue until December 2016. At this stage, this retrospective planning application had been in motion for a year with two withdrawn applications. There were a lot of objections which were lodged against this withdrawn planning application meaning that objectors had to start again with the next planning application.

Application number: 2016/5912

Proposal: Retention of three portacabins at the southern end of the site for use as additional teaching space for a further 3 years (Affecting the setting of a Grade I listed building).

Application Registered: 14 November 2016, though documents started to be uploaded on 11 October 2016

Decision: Approve with Conditions 14 February 2017

Again, there were a lot of objections, though have you noticed two further amendments.

The retention is now for three cabins instead of seven. Also, the date of approval is 28 months after the first document was uploaded (15 October 2015) with the first planning application (2015/5648).

The following photo, also taken from Kimpton House, highlights the now removed portacabins.

Didn’t Councillor Carpenter suggest he was going to provide resident representations at the Council’s Planning Application Committee (PAC)?

Yes, this was stated at the Roehampton Forum, yet didn’t happen. It has been suggested that Councillor Carpenter may not have been aware of the Council’s delegated power which permits planning application to be agreed by the Council’s planners rather than the PAC. This application was approved as it was less than 500 square metres of non-residential floor space. If this is true, one hopes that Councillor Carpenter is aware of the delegated powers now that he is on the PAC?

Another suggestion was that maybe Councillor Carpenter did not make his views known to the PAC that he wished to make representations at the PAC regarding this planning application. If this is true, then could Councillor Ambache, who was on the PAC at the time, could have informed Councillor Carpenter to make his representation position known to PAC members?

At the Let’s Talk event of 12th September 2016 wasn’t the portacabin planning discussed?

Yes, it was, and the following is taken from the Minutes;

“4. Roehampton University

Question/Comment – A resident said that he had contacted the planning service, without response, about the portacabins that had been erected without planning permission in the car park at Roehampton University facing Kimpton House. He said that the portacabins had been in place over 4 years and reduced on-site parking provision at the University that had been pushed out onto already busy roads such as Holybourne Avenue and Fontley Way. He suggested a survey by the University about staff and student parking during term and non-term time to determine the impact of the portacabins and said that residents were being forced into accepting a CPZ because of University demands. Concern also raised that the University is ‘getting away’ with not following due process and who is auditing the process? A resident raised the issue of excessive noise emanating from the University portacabins that affected Kimpton House and ‘terrified’ some residents.

Response – It was noted that an earlier planning application had been withdrawn but a revised one was due to be submitted including a transport assessment. A planning enforcement notice was still valid in respect of the unauthorised structures. Councillor Carpenter said that the University claimed that the portacabins did not reduce parking as the car park had been repainted to provide the same number of spaces as previously. He again advised residents to come along to the councillors surgeries to speak about any problems and if possible to attend the Roehampton Forum and Roehampton Partnership meetings. Councillor Ambache told the meeting that breaches of planning control should be reported to the planning service at the Town Hall and that, as a member of the Planning Applications Committee that would consider any application, he would not be able to ‘take a position’ on the matter but was listening to the related dialogue. He also confirmed that he was available to be contacted on any of the issues raised and this could be done in a variety of ways.

Councillor McKinney said that she understood the portacabin area to be the psychology department.

 With the consent of the meeting, Rev. McKinney then spoke as a governor of Whitelands College to inform the meeting that some concerns had been expressed at the Roehampton Forum. He said that he would raise the issue of the noise with the college and also that as far as he was aware the portacabins would be removed as the need for them had now reduced”.

Note that there is a comment in the Let’s Talk Minutes which states that the “portacabins would be removed as the need for them had now reduced”?

What does this application and Ibstock School’s planning application (2015/5074) have in common?

Both applications have taken at least two years to work their way through the planning system before being approved, though were being utilized by the applicants to some extent. As this is typed, Ibstock School’s planning application was registered on 22 September 2015 and is yet to be approved.

Three attempts for one planning application, maybe something to think about for 66 Alton Road?

With so many objections to the second application having to be repeated for the third application, is this a lesson as to the fate that 66 Alton Road (planning application 2017/3082) may face? Residents and interested parties may need to be vigilant in keeping an eye out for further attempts to demolish this building.

Please note that all information is provided on a best efforts basis and that readers should make their own efforts to review and assess the provided content.

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

 Or email your local Member of Parliament at;

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

 

Ibstock School planning application not approved though in use?

One thing is for sure, planning applications in the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward are not boring. First there was Roehampton University’s portacabin planning application (2016/5912) which was approved to the dismay of many local residents, though now there is the Ibstock School’s planning application 2015/5074 which might join the list of planning applications that goes within the “what is going on?” list.

Background

For a refresher of what this planning application was about the background is;

Background to the application is “The Performing Arts Centre (PAC) was due for completion at the end of August 2015. However, it is likely that the final fitting-out of the PAC will continue through to October. The School hopes to have its first production in the PAC in December 2015. The purpose of this submission is to quantify the increase in traffic likely to be caused by the opening of the PAC and its use by the local community and other organisations, and to describe the mitigation measures being put in place”.

Bear in mind that point 13 of the “Permission for Development” dated 11 June 2013 stated “Prior to commencement of the use of the Performance Arts Centre (PAC), details of proposals for the provision of access to the PAC’s facilities for the benefit of the local community, including local schools and clubs, shall have been submitted in writing to the Council for approval”.

What’s the current position?

The theatre is in use and this is seen via the school’s live events webpage. If you have a look at the moment there are tickets for £12 or £15 to see, amongst other events, either Peter Pan or Angels in America: Part One, Millennium Approaches.

However, according to the Council’s planning application website, this has not yet been approved bearing in mind this planning application was submitted in 2015.

Where is the theatre located?

In the Ibstock School by Danebury Avenue.

What’s been done?

A query was sent to the Planning application team on June 11th 2017 stating;

“according to the Council’s website planning application 2015-5074 has not yet been approved.

Can it be confirmed please that it has been approved”.

The response on June 20th 2017 was;

 “Discussions between the school and Council are ongoing and there is hope that the full programme for use of the facilities will soon be agreed. I have contacted the Council’s arts and culture team for further comment on the matter. If you contact me again in a week or so, hopefully I will have a more conclusive response”.

The following have also been informed;

  • The Roehampton Forum Management Committee
  • The Putney Society
  • Putneysw15
  • Roehampton & Putney Heath Councillors (one of which is on the Planning Application Committee)

Conclusion

It would be interesting to get reader’s thoughts which could be added to this article.

 Related articles of interest

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

  • Peter Carpenter – pcarpenter@wandsworth.gov.uk
  • Jeremy Ambache – JAmbache@wandsworth.gov.uk
  • Sue McKinney – SMcKinney@wandsworth.gov.uk

Portacabins – follow up questions to the Council’s planners

With regards to the recent planning application 2016/5912, that being to do with Roehampton University’s portacabin application, the following questions have been asked of the Council;

“With regards to the planning application 2016/5912 can answers to the following questions please be provided:

  1. The number of planning application decisions made in the last five calendar years (2012-2016), and the first two months of 2017.  In many cases, the actual applications will have been submitted the previous year;
  2. The number accepted and rejected in each of those years and 2017 to date;
  3. The number of applications considered by the Planning Committee and the number considered under delegated authority by Council officers alone in each of those years;
  4. An acceptance/rejection comparison between those decided by the Planning Committee and those by Council officers alone in each of those years;
  5. The average (both mode and mean) number of objections made in respect of all the possible options in (b) to (d) above, i.e. acceptance/rejection and committee decision/delegated authority; and
  6. How many decisions were made in each of the five years for which there were more than 50 objections and of these, how many were accepted/rejected and how many decided by Committee/delegated authority.
  7. Please explain why the suggestion of the Wandsworth Conservation Area Advisory Committee for one year retention, rather than three, was not selected as the timeframe ?
  8. This first application, 2016/1365, started in March 2016, and this request was for a three year retention, then removed. A Travel Plan was requested and this application was withdrawn and then replaced by 2016/5912 which was also for a three year period. Please explain the reason for allowing the University an additional 11 months (March 2016 to February 2017) on top of the original 3 years?
  9. The number of objections (107) seems low. I have seen an email correspondence from Mr Pierce which confirms that for Hersham Close Residents Association (HCRA) that its objection would count not as one objection but equal to the number of properties it represents, thereby this would make that 48. HCRA did not obtain individual objections based on this understanding. Extending this concept, then Stoughton Close & Greatham Walk Residents Association would be 49 objections and not one. Please confirm the position regarding how objections are viewed from a numerical point of view when received from non-individuals, for instance, from Residents Associations or The Putney Society.
  10. Referring to question 9, where is the guidance on the Council’s website for how such objections should be reviewed in terms of numbers of objections?
  11. With regards to the comment “in this case, the public benefit is having the contribution of Roehampton University to the economy of the borough, and the communal life of Roehampton” can the following be explained;
  12. Explain in detail, using facts and figures in additional to any comments, what the “contribution” is to the “economy of the borough”?
  13. Explain in detail, using facts and figures in additional to any comments, what the “contribution” is to the “communal life of Roehampton”?
  14. Regarding “noise disturbance”, is the Council stating that even though this noise disturbance was openly challenged with the University at a Roehampton Forum general meeting (attended by Councillor Carpenter) and was noted within the November Let’s Talk meeting Minutes for Roehampton (attended by Council staff and Councillors, including Councillor Ravi Govindia) that these do not count as noise disturbances?
  15. Related to question 14, if the Roehampton Forum meeting does not count then anything the University said at this meeting would equally not be worthy of recognition by the Council?
  16. From question 14, do noise complaints only count if the Environmental Services investigate?
  17. Where it states that “A staged refurbishment of the existing library within the Harvey Building is planned and could provide general teaching space to accommodate the needs of Whitelands College”, to what degree of certainty is this “could” a “will be done”?
  18. Further to this comment, has the Council reviewed the plans from the University regarding the ability to meet the three year period agreed?
  19. How is it possible that the University has been able to build a plethora of student accommodation at the expense of teaching premises which the University obviously requires and does this with various planning permissions granted by the Council?”

To keep an eye on progress click on this sentence.

Related articles (regarding the portacabin application);

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

  • Peter Carpenter – pcarpenter@wandsworth.gov.uk
  • Jeremy Ambache – JAmbache@wandsworth.gov.uk
  • Sue McKinney – SMcKinney@wandsworth.gov.uk

Student car parking pressures on the Alton Estate, acknowledged in 2002?!

The recent fiasco with regards to the Roehampton University (planning application (2016/5912) to do with the portacabins resulted in a search of what was mentioned when the current student accommodation by Whitelands College was first being planned for. From planning applications 2002/3673 & 2002/3676 there are some interesting comments which hold true today, some 15 years later. Let’s have a look at some of the comments.

The Putney Society must have had a crystal ball as the comments about car parking seem to apply very much to the present.

The Green Travel Plan (page 49 of the Committee report)

How much of the following do you think is still current?

“The Green Travel Plan (GTP) includes a survey of the current travel modes by staff/students at the West Hill campus and the main Roehampton Lane campus. The GTP proposes the continuation of the University shuttle bus between the two campus sites but with increased frequency; display of bus information within the campus: interest free loans for staff to purchase public transport season tickets; negotiate discounts for staff/students with local bus operators; organise ‘ride home’ for staff; provision of a bus shelter with seating at Barnes Station; preparation of public transport leaflets; encourage cycling; install pedestrian signage; introduce a car share scheme for staff; promote home working and flexitime policy and, appoint a travel co-ordinator.”

Objection comment (pages 50-51 of the Committee report)

“Responses to scheme as originally submitted:

2 objections: increase in population creating more competition for already inadequate services. Loss of tress. Anti-social behavior from students. Loss of open space would further the Alton Estate decline. New blocks should be reduced in height by one storey. Provision of facilities for a ‘privileged group’ should be mirrored by similar facilities for the young people of Roehampton generally.”

The Putney Society (page 53 of the Committee report)

“Concerned that the proposed development will generate considerable demand for parking which will have a damaging impact on surrounding streets. A ‘Green Travel Plan’ is required.

 Applicants transport assessment is riddled with inaccuracies. No parking is provided for students. The assessment is very superficial and fails to note the extensive free parking space bays on the Red Route Roehampton Lane outside the main university campus (filled by students), the lack of such bays on the stretch of Roehampton Lane near Parkstead and the parking pressures which have arisen in the residential areas to the east of Roehampton Lane (no doubt caused by students) opposite the main campus site. There is real concern that the roads around the Parkstead site, on the Alton Estate, will be subject to serious parking pressures – and these roads are already heavily parked. The transport assessment fails to address this issue properly.”

The Putney Society (page 56 of the Committee report)

“The Putney Society – the society’s previous objections to the proposed destruction of the woodland area to the east of Parkstead House, much appreciated from outside the site, and its replacement by blocks of student accommodation, still stands. These blocks would cause environmental loss to the area adjoining the application site because of their scale and appearance. The blocks need to be reduced to three storeys. Concern at the likely demand for student parking on the streets surrounding the site still stands. The applicants have not addressed this issue seriously.”

Engineering services (page 57 of the Committee report)

“The number of staff at the site would be 184 and the number of students attending the site would 836 and based on this the level of parking in accordance with the Council’s Revised UDP would be 102 spaces for both staff and students. The development would provide accommodation for 317 students and 121 off street parking sspaces which will be restricted to staff use. This level of parking provision exceeds the Council’s standards but as the site is in a location with medium accessibility to public transport is probably acceptable. It is likely that some students will own cars and as they will not be permitted to park them within the development they will park on streets nearby. The applicant has been requested to supply an estimate of the number of cars generated by the development which would be parked on the streets around the development at various times of the day”.

Council’s comment (page 60 of the Committee report)

“At present, there is no operational residents parking scheme in the area and there is understandable concern that the proposed development could result in an overspill of parking into the surrounding area, particularly as the area is not particularly well served by public transport.

While a relatively intensive form of development, the level of on-site parking is limited given the site’s medium accessibility location. In this respect, the university, as with the main campus, continues to discourage the use of private cars by both students and staff. While the application includes a Green Travel Plan, there may inevitably be some additional pressure on parking in neighbouring roads”.

Roeregeneration conclusion

This was 14/15 years ago, and the car parking issues persist. What have the ward Councillors been doing about this problem during this time?

 Related articles:

Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

Weekly Council Planning applications and decisions – February 18th 2017

Given there is so much happening in the ward at the moment, it might be worth residents keeping a watch on what is being planned for the Alton Estate. So, on a best endeavours basis, we’ll try to include this section.

The page numbers refer to the Wandsworth Council planning applications and decisions for the Roehampton & Putney Heath ward. Whilst every effort is made to highlight the page numbers and present the information below it is always best for the reader to have a read of the original Council documents just in case any errors have been made.

Applications

There doesn’t appear to be any this week.

 Decisions (page 20)

Application No: 2016/5912 W

  • Decided on: 14/02/2017
  • Date Registered: 14/11/2016 Legal Agreement : N
  • Address: Parkstead House, Whitelands College, Holybourne Avenue, SW15
  • Proposal: Retention of three portacabins at the southern end of the site for use as additional teaching space for a further 3 years (Affecting the setting of a Grade I listed building).
  • Conservation area (if applicable): Alton Conservation Area
  • Applicant: University of Roehampton, C/O Boyer Planning, Second Floor, 24 Southwark Bridge Road, London, SE1 9HF
  • Agent: Boyer Planning, Second Floor, 24 Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HF
  • Decision: Approve with Conditions
  • Decision Taker: Delegated Standard

Click on this sentence to take you to the Weekly List of planning applications and decisions.

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;

Roehampton University 1, Roehampton residents 0

Well, Roehampton University’s planning application (2016/5912) took an interesting twist this week. Rather than go to the Council’s Planning Application Committee this has been agreed outside of the Committee.

Given the following objections, one has to wonder what it takes for residents to be listened to;

107 objections, consisting of;

  • Individual objections (x7),
  • pro-forma letters (x64),
  • Wandsworth Conservation Area Advisory Committee,
  • Roehampton Forum,
  • Alton Area Regeneration Watch,
  • The Putney Society,
  • Hersham Close Residents Association and
  • Stoughton Close & Greatham Walk Residents Association.

Rather than repeat what happened click on this sentence and read the putneysw15 Forum discussion which provides a useful summary of the background.

Related articles (regarding the portacabin application);

 Contact

Email us at – roeregeneration@yahoo.com – and let us know of any concerns/thoughts you may have or add a comment at the end of the blog entry in the ‘Leave a Reply’ section.

Or email us to join the (almost) weekly newsletter which tries to highlight what’s been happening in Roehampton.

For a different view of Roehampton, especially the Alton Estate

Or email your Roehampton and Putney Heath Councillors at;