According to Kylun's stats, 65% of local residents who attended the consultation (we don't know the number, since they don't say what number filled in feedback forms) broadly approved of the development. If we assume that 100 people filled in feedback forms (since we know that over 150 people attended), there are only about 65 local residents in favour, with a significant proportion against. However, residents cannot say they've not been consulted on the matter, so the decision now lies with the Council. The reference number for the development is 10/02060/FUL, try clicking here, as it proved very tricky to find (thanks, anonymous). The plot is described as bounded by Parry Street and Bondway and falls into Oval Ward. Residents have until 5/8/2010 to comment on the application, and should you wish to do so, use the link above and click the "submit comments" button.
As far as I can see, there's still no committment from the letter re. figures provided on affordable housing, but I'll take a look at the detailed application later and report back. I'd have thought that this is something our local councillors would be interested in too.
On a more positive note, I welcome the emphasis on the streetscape (which can hardly be made worse), improvement to the underground station entrance, new pedestrian and cycle crossings, new shops and restaurants and a cinema (which one reader fears won't be commercially viable, so we'll have to see). I imagine monetary contributions to both Vauxhall Park and Vauxhall Spring Gardens would be very welcome and I'd really like a little more information about the proposed improvements of the railway arches.
Posts
6 comments:
Here you are.
I had trouble finding it too.
10/02060/FULL
It's times like this that I remember how awful the Lambeth planning website is. Why does it only work in Internet Explorer? Why does take so long to download the file attachments?
Just to play devil's advocate, if you use your logic RE support for the plans, you could also argue that if 100 people filled in the feedback forms, only 35 people oppose it. If you were wanting to scrutinise their assessment of support, I'd be more interested to know what criteria they use for defining "broadly supportive."
Personally speaking though, I'm pretty fed up of having the barren island swamped with advertising hoardings in the middle of Vauxhall. The application height is shorter than previous proposals, and design is pretty good. There are probably some tweaks that need doing (e.g. around affordable housing) but really, it's far better than what we have there now, and what has been proposed in the past.
Shorter height would mean less money for public realm improvements and other S106 contributions, and less space for affordable housing. That's the tradeoff that people need to consider.
I entirely agree with you about the dysfunctionality of the Lambeth planning website!
I accept the logic. But in general, 100 answers is probably not enough to gauge anything. Rather than viewing the criteria used to judge "broadly supportive", I'd rather that all public responses were viewable to the public. That would be a very transparent way of operating, but I doubt anybody would actually agree to that.
In general, I feel more positive about this development than others. I look forward, particularly, to improved pedestrian/cycling access, a cinema and a few more places to grab a sandwich. It's rather barren there at the moment.
However, I don't think developers such as these should be exempt from providing housing association (rather than part-buy) housing because of the importance of building community, which is much harder when property is purchased by buy to let landlords and perpetually rented out.
So.. I've managed to get one document downloaded!
RE Social Housing, the proportion of residential units to be 'affordable' is to be between 20-25%
Split as follows:
Social Rent:
60% of affordable housing, consisting of:
15% 1 bed
42.5% 2 bed
42.5% e bed+
Shared Ownership:
40% of affordable housing,
consisting of:
50% 1 bed
50% 2 bed
It's good to see a high proportion of social rented... but overall at only 20-25% of the development, it's a bit lower than I'd like.
They're going to spend thousands on an "art display" on the rail bridge - read tacky LED light display. We can just go to Fire nightclub if we want that.
No contribution towards facilities on the deprived estate on the other side of Spring Gardens - the playground is crying out for money for improvements. And yes, they have been asked several times.
Instead there will be an exclusive private playground in the building.
We'll be opposing it.
of the sbo
sbo
development. If we assume that 100
Post a Comment