Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB) Exhibition - Part 2 of 5 - Lambeth Council

This is Part 2 of a series of posts detailing the photos taken of all display boards at the Vauxhall Nine Elms and Battersea (VNEB) consultation held on 2nd and 3rd October 2010.  This post details the plans displayed by Lambeth Council.  The opportunity area that falls within the geographical region of Lambeth is much smaller than the area that falls within Wandsworth.


You'll see from this map (the purple line indicates the Lambeth/Wandsworth boundary) that all of the developments at Vauxhall fall within Lambeth.  The yellow line indicates the Opportunity Area boundary, so you'll see that the Lambeth VNEB Opportunity area reaches all of the way up to Lambeth Road and includes the entirety of the Albert Embankment.  The Lambeth area also includes the Nine Elms Sainsburys, but does not not include the New Covent Garden flower market:

(Image taken and bodged   from  Streetmap)  

I'm afraid that the following Lambeth Planning images don't include anything that we don't already know about, but they're here for posterity.  I apologise for the slightly odd reflective effect, but somebody from Lambeth is obviously using up the lamination budget:

First up, St George's Tower / Vauxhall Tower.  Vauxhall will be stuck with the ugliest, tallest tower in London at 50 storeys/180 metres (even taller than Strata / The Ladyshave).  Never mind.  As somebody pointed out, the stamp duty paid by residents will fund plenty of Section 106 developments and projects for local people.  The tower represents regeneration, which is generally a good idea in Vauxhall.  Unfortunately, their swimming pool won't be open for public use:

Next up, we have the proposed Vauxhall Island site.  For more on the consultation/plans on that, see over here.  It's 41 storeys/140 metres high, and I can't see these iconic towers being turned down by Lambeth.  I'm not sure when the decision on this is due. The towers have a much more attractive shape than the Vauxhall Tower above and the Vauxhall Island site is just a barren wasteland of advertising hoardings at present.  The exciting thing about the Vauxhall Island site is improvements made to the surrounding area in terms of shops, restaurants and pedestrian access:

Vauxhall Sky Gardens was approved when nobody was looking at the beginning of 2010.  It's only 36 storeys, so I'm sure nobody will notice it:

81 Black Prince Road would fit in quite nicely if it were nearer to the Vauxhall cluster of towers.  It's going to look rather odd rising up to 77 metres (23 storeys) at the end of Black Prince Road, which is mostly low rise housing.  I'm not sure whether I photographed the consultation documents (I've wised up over time), but the view from Kennington Cross is horrific.  I'm not keen on the design at all, but I suppose it's a matter of taste:

Nobody really liked the Bondway Tower, except the Lambeth Council Officers.  Here are some of the reasons why local residents didn't want the Bondway.  Despite the Council's refusal, the developer appealed, and a huge public enquiry was held.  I was going to write a series on the Bondway appeal, but I didn't get any further than a post summarising the opening arguments.  I might continue, if anybody expresses interest, but some of this material is mightily dull to plough through.  We should hear a decision from the Planning Inspectorate by December 2010, or January 2011, and I'm guessing that this one might end up being heard by the Secretary of State:

Here's the one I was missing earlier.   It's 20 Albert Embankment and it already has planning permission. I think it might look rather strange, being so tall, neighbouring the other buildings.   At least part of it will be a hotel.  Another hotel:

I commend the enhanced links between Vauxhall and the river, and improvements to Spring Gardens.  I'm hoping that it will mean the abolition of the gyratory and improved cyclist and pedestrian accessibility.  Here's the overall concept plan:

I am amused that the Development Management Development Plan Document (it can't really be called that!), which will be used to assess planning applications, will emerge in early 2011.  I can't imagine that there will be many planning applications for buildings in the Vauxhall part of VNEB left to submit by that time!  I look forward to the site allocations document that will advise where new schools, mosques and health centres might be placed.  That document will also emerge in early 2011:

Finally, here's a quick overview of the "new heart for Vauxhall" that the Council has planned:

So, what's missing...?  We don't yet know what's planned for the Sainsburys site (you'll have to wait for the disappointing 4th part of the series for that, but there's no significant information in the public domain yet). I'm not sure whether there are towers planned for the Market Gardens residential section (it's technically in Wandsworth), but it looked like it from the 3D model, and those will have some impact on Vauxhall.  I imagine that the Texaco garage plans (38 - 46 Albert Embankment) will rear their head again (more info on the old application here).  We're waiting for revised Fire Station at 8 Albert Embankment to be submitted.  1 - 9 Bondway (the new Travelodge) wasn't on display, but it's either considered too small or too new.  There probably wasn't time to laminate it before the ink had dried!  Also, the "new heart for Vauxhall" board above seems to indicate that development will take place on Vauxhall Walk, and the "South East Regeneration Arc".  I'm not sure we've seen submissions for either of these yet, so I imagine that there must be more developers still to consult in Lambeth.

VNEB exhibition Part 1 of 5 - Ballymore can be found here, if you find planning matters thrilling and exciting :-)

81 Black Prince Road and other tall building updates

Sorry for abandoning you all for a while, but it sometimes gets exhausting and then overwhelming to keep up with the volume of local news at the same time as being involved in various local projects. I'm going to try and do a catchup.

In the meantime, there are a few big building updates that you should know about. You might remember that I posted a summary of these back in June. Here is an update:

1. 8 Albert Embankment - This is actually a series of buildings on 3 different sites and would involve the redevelopment of the London Firebrigade HQ. There was a consultation that I reported back in late June here (along with photos of the exhibition). There has recently been a second exhibition/consultation that I was unable to attend. One person that I know did attend, but said it was very much a repeat of the first exhibition. If readers have further information, I'd be delighted to receive it. Rumour has it that part of the site is due to receive a 29 storey building, which won't be popular with residents who are beginning to feel that they are being pushed away from the river, but I've not got the height confirmed in writing. Since both consultations have been performed, I imagine that we're waiting for planning permission to be submitted. There's nothing in the Lambeth planning database at present.  Ed:  Fortunately, London-SE1 seem to have been present at the second consultation and they have an article here.

2. 69-71 Bondway - I've checked the Viva Vauxhall website and the latest update is here. They report that Lambeth Planning Committee will meet twice (which is unusual) to decide whether the basic design of the tower is acceptable for the officers to make a decision about whether they think the building is proceedable. Amusingly, they note that a police station might be included as part of the building, which would undoubtedly make the siren problem worse (yes, the one that made Hazel Blears move house). I have little info. on 69-71 Bondway as it's further down in SE11 than I am and is covered very well by Viva Vauxhall, but leave comments if I've missed anything.

3. 38-46 Albert Embankment - This one is on the site of the Texaco garage, not far from Vauxhall itself. It was refused by the councilors, but the developers appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. However, interestingly, the appeal was withdrawn before there was a chance to hold a public hearing. Consequently, the proposed building will not proceed.

4.  81 Black Prince Road - Even if you only half heartedly keep up with local Planning news, you must have heard by now that on the 15th September, the Planning Inspectorate overturned the council's objections to building 81 Black Prince Road.  This is very bad news for those of us who were at all concerned by very tall buildings on the river as it will be 23 storeys high.  Sadly, it appears that the Salamanca Tower must have set a precedent.  Unfortunately, it's likely that 81 Black Prince Road will set a precedent for 8 Albert Embankment (see above) and the unattractive and tall buildings will continue to abound. 

The Prince's Ward Labour blog wrote a post to indicate that they do not agree with the Inspectorate, but as far as I'm concerned, the Council has not set out a sensible plan re. tall buildings in Vauxhall (especially considering that the Vauxhall Supplementary Planning document cannot be approved until the Mayor comes back with his own revised plan for London).  Various tall buildings are being pushed through in the interim before we have an SPD for Vauxhall that can be used to even set a sensible plan for the area.  I am somewhat at a loss to know how local residents can, with local councillors, strengthen their voices against the continual encroachment and "pushing back" of Vauxhall and Kennington residents from the river.  However, in order not to burst blood vessels of frustation, I merely content myself with making sarcastic blog posts on the matter.

8 Albert Embankment, SE1 and other tall buildings in SE11

It's another SE1 development, but thanks to the Labour SE11 Action team guys, we've news of an initial consultation on a potential new development at 8, Albert Embankment. London-SE1 news site reported back in August 2007 that the site was to be sold to developers, and we're now seeing movement from the developers about how they might proceed.

I've requested more details from the 8 Albert Embankment agents, prior to the consultation, eg. images/plans about what the developers want to do with 8 Albert Embankment, as it will almost certainly affect those who live in SE11, who will live in its shadow.

The decision on the proposed development at 81 Black Prince Road is currently with the Planning Inspectorate in Bristol and their decision might affect what can be built at 8 Albert Embankment. This was predicted by an anonymous commentator (douglas788) back in May 2009 when he commented on the fact that he'd found mention of 81 Black Prince Road in the minutes of a discussion from London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Click here to read that rather interesting nugget.

Do take careful note of the various proposals that would mean SE11 residents would be overshadowed:

1. 4. 8 Albert Embankment (Kennington/Waterloo/Albert Embankment)
Initial consultation pending

2. 69-71 Bondway (Vauxhall)
You can still object/agree as comments re. planning permission are still open on this one.

3. 38 Albert Embankment (Kennington/Waterloo/Albert Embankment) This is with the planning inspectorate, pending a decision on whether to overturn Lambeth Council's objection. (See comment by Cllr Harrison for further info.)

4. 81 Black Prince Road (Kennington/Waterloo/Albert Embankment)
This is with the planning inspectorate, pending a decision on whether to overturn Lambeth Council's objection.

5. Walworth Road Strata/Castle House (Elephant)
This is already built!

81 Black Prince Road grounds of appeal

OK, after a number of hiccups, I now have the 81 Black Prince Road grounds of appeal in .pdf document form. It's only about 4 pages long so will not take as long to read as other recent missives!

Quick history:
As you'll have seen from the previous post on 81 Black Prince Road, Ristoia Ltd put in a request for planning permission to build a 23 storey building on the above site. The request was refused on 5 grounds by Lambeth Council. Ristoia Ltd have now appealed against Lambeth's refusal to the Planning Inspectorate. Consequently, those individuals (and groups) who objected to the building before can now object to the reasons for appeal and those objections must be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.

I'm going to provide a quick summary, but I suggest that those people (or groups) that are appealing refer to the document itself

[NB. I'm slightly confused because Lambeth's minutes noted four grounds for refusing the building (see my previous post), but the document I'm quoting lists five.]

1a. Lambeth's ground 1 for rejection:
"The harm that would be caused to the setting of the World Heritage Site"
2a. Lambeth's ground 2 for rejection:
"Impact on the setting of listed buildings and adjoining conservation areas"

1b and 2b. Ristoia's objection to Lambeth:
Professor Robert Tavernor (probably helps that he's a professor) did the assessment and decided that the proposed building wouldn't be harmful to either South Bank House or London Fire Brigade Headquarters. By the way, here's a picture of the absolutely exquisite South Bank House:

Isn't it fabulous? And since they don't think it would harm (or overshadow) buildings such a these, they think that it complies with Policies 45 and 47 of the Lambeth UDP.

Additionally, they list policy 33 of the UDP, which assesses the criteria for suitability of sites and states that major development needs to take into account the adjacent townscape (which they think it does) and they also list the regeneration aims for the Albert Embankment, and, importantly, "consents granted for other tall buildings in the area" as reasons to proceed.

Also, they note that Policy 58 of the UDP states that the Albert Embankment is a "key stretch" of Lambeth's Thames frontage for "several major development proposals". Bizarrely, they consider that the fact that the building has "been designed as a sculpted pinnacle" is something that adds (rather than detracts) to the Albert Embankment.

Finally, Ristoia Ltd appeal to to Policy 40 in the UDP. Policy 40 is the "tall buildings" policy.

1c and 2c. My suggestion to all individuals objecting to the appeal:

Focus on why you don't think it complies with policies 45 and 47.

They're citing "other tall buildings in the area" as a reason to build. This threatens to set a dangerous precedent. There are some other tall buildings which were granted permission on Stockwell/Vauxhall border, and St George's Wharf in Vauxhall, but erecting this building risks making the Albert Embankment into another area in which tall buildings might be permitted. The Salamanca Tower is tall enough and I suggest that no new building be higher than that.

In objecting to their interpretation of Policy 33 and 58, I would argue as follows: "Yes, the Albert Embankment is listed as a focus for development proposals, but this site is not on Albert Embankment, it's actually on Black Prince Road, which is a highly residential area and full of low rise /medium rise buildings." The "sculpted pinnacle" effect does not work well when looking from Black Prince Road on to the Albert Embankment (south to north).

Finally, look closely at Policy 40 in the Lambeth UDP. The first aloowance that they give for tall buildings relates to Location and notes very specifically, "Tall buildings should not be located where they would harm the character of "conservation areas", "listed buildings", "riverscape and townscape", "strategic views" and "the Palace of Westminster Heritage site". Also, let's think back to some of the work I did recently on the draft Core Policy for the Local Development Framework. p63 (Vauxhall) notes that 'Along the river, Lambeth are anxious to avoid creating a wall effect, blocking out the Thames and want sufficient gaps between buildings.' Also, I failed to spot this line at the time, but p56 of the draft Core Policy says "Appropriate locations for tall buildings are the Vauxhall and Waterloo London Plan Opportunity Areas and the borough’s major town centres, subject to appropriate accompanying urban design assessments." It is very important to note that Black Prince Road could, by no stretch of the imagination be considered Vauxhall or Waterloo. I would argue that it is the riverside portion of Kennington, and most people might once have referred to it as just "Lambeth" due to the proximity of Lambeth Walk.

3a. Lambeth's ground 3 for rejection:
"Proposal would have an adverse impact on setting of Palace of Wstminster and Westminster Abbey World Heritage Site and would undermine important setting of St Stephen's Tower". [Ed: Where did this one come from? It doesn't seem to be in the meeting minutes...]

3b. Ristoia's objection to Lambeth
The applicant was supported by a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment which concluded the development wouldn't harm either of the two sites or the views, and in fact, there's a neglible impact on the skyline from Whitehall.

3c. My suggestion to all individuals objecting to the appeal:
This one is a bit odd. It's entirely subjective. Lambeth say "X is true" and Ristoia basically just say "X is not true". I've no idea how one goes about disagreeing with a Visual Impact Assessment in an objective manner.

4a. Lambeth's ground 4 for rejection
"Poor quantity and quality of the proposed amenity space."

4b. Ristoia's objection to Lambeth
Interesting. On this one, Ristoia's reason of substance is "Reason 4 for refusal is unreasonable." and "The treatment of the open space is of a sufficient high quality".

4c. My suggestion to all individuals objecting to the appeal:
Hmm. Again, rather difficult to be sensible here. Perhaps it might be possible to proceed on the following grounds... p31 of the draft core strategy of the Local Development Framework states something like, "Lambeth, particularly in the north has little open space relative to population." If I recall correctly, it even talks about hectares... Hmmm. Oh yes, p16, "There are 1.54 hectares of unrestricted open space in Lambeth per 1000 of the population, but access is unevenly spread and limited in north of the borough". So perhaps objections might centre around the fact that with limited open community space around here, an extra special effort must be made to provide more than would ordinarily needed. What do readers think?

5a. Lambeth's ground 5 for rejection
"Overbearing impact of the proposed development and the creation of a sense of enclosure (particularly re. Salamanca Square)."

5b. Ristoia's objection to Lambeth
Development has been carefully designed to minimise overlooking issues and designed so that distance between adjacent buildings wouldn't have overbearing impact on nearby residents. Therefore, the proposals wouldn't result in sense of enclosure and overbearing impact. They quote policies 33 and 40 of the UDP.

Also, the development is sustainable and brings employment and housing that should regenerate the area.

5c. My suggestion to all individuals objecting to the appeal:
Oh dear. Again, it's another tit for tat objection. I have no idea how the Planning Inspectorate views these in any objective manner. Perhaps it's time to order some planning law books!! What's the likelihood that there are some rather important people living in Salamanca Square eg. MPs, who don't want people looking in their bedrooms? :) Seriously though, I suppose it's time to enter the nitty gritty of polcy 33 in the UDP (p94). However, I can't see any way of objecting to this sensibly "xii" is "not creating unacceptable overlooking", but who exactly is supposed to say what "unacceptable overlooking is"?

81 Black Prince road appeal

I mentioned the attempt by a developer to gain planning permission to place a very tall building (23 storeys) in SE1 on the site of 81 Black Prince Road here back in January this year (2009). Interested parties can look up reference 08/04454/FUL on the Lambeth planning database. It is of interest to lurkers about SE11 as it is very close to the postcode boundary, and most Kennington (and some Vauxhall) residents will over look it.

At one point, I thought I might have a vested interest in seeing this application fail, but that is no longer the case. I do, however, continue to object on the basis that the building will not enhance the local area, and will set a precedent for building higher on the Albert Embankment. (You can see from the image below that Salamanca Tower is quite high enough). The building would dominate the landscape, looking from South London towards North London, and it would begin to close off the river for everybody that lives south of the Albert Embankment. It has been argued that there are taller developments in Vauxhall, but I think they're significantly far away that they should not count as a precedent for the 81 Black Prince Road site.

I failed to mention that the first attempt at planning permission was denied on 11/2/2009. The minutes to the planning meeting can be found here.

If you consult the minutes, you'll see that it was a close call. The permission was only, eventually, rejected on grounds of:

1. The harm that would be caused to the setting of the World Heritage Site,
2. Impact on the setting of listed buildings and adjoining conservation areas;
3. Poor quantity and quality of the proposed amenity space.
4. Overbearing impact of the proposed development and the creation of a sense of enclosure.

Unfortunately, the developers are appealing the decision made not to grant permission.

An appeal was lodged on 6/4/2009 and can also be found in the Lambeth Planning Database under reference 09/00048/FULREF.

Unfortunately, the appeal papers don't appear to have been uploaded to the database in this instance, so I've written to the Town Planning Advice Centre to request them.

I've been informed that any submissions from the public (which I believe have to refer to the conditions for refusal) (items 1 to 4) have to be submitted by 18/5/2009.

Submissions have to be sent to the Planning Appeals inspectorate in Bristol in triplicate to the following address:

The Planning Inspectorate, PO Box 326, Bristol, BS99 7XF.

Also, they have an online appeal process that can be accessed here.


I found an image from skyscrapercity.com alt="81 Black Prince Road outline"which I've pasted below, so that you can get a view of scale and some idea about how the external structure would look:

Council tax - good news

I've been a bit lax of late, about updating this blog. There are a number of local events taking place, and much information is available elsewhere through, for example, the Kennington Association news blog, and also on Stockwell News, but I'll keep trying to highlight events from time to time as well...

One of the first things worth commenting on this year is the council tax freeze. I think it's worth saying "yay" about the fact that Lambeth council have frozen council tax for the next two years. Info gained from the Labour Councillors' Princes Ward blog, SE11 Action team, here.

On the other hand, are we impressed by the scale or depth of detail re. the consultation over 81 Black Prince (I went into further detail about this in my last post here)? No. We're not the slightest bit impressed to receive only two days notice that there is to be a meeting with the developers about 81 Black Prince Road, organised by the Council. Whilst it appears that their blog was updated on January 22nd to inform the public about the meeting, it appears that many of the interested parties did not receive an email until January 27th.

So... The meeting about 81 Black Prince Road is tonight from 5pm to 8pm at the 81 Black Prince Road site. The postcode for the site is SE1 7SZ.

Fog - Coffee morning - nasty tall building

Everything seems rather quiet at the moment in SE11. A long, dark fog descended last night making views towards the river disappear. The Tesco in Vauxhall / Kennington still appears to contain a large amount of unbought Christmas food. Quite a number of formerly occupied shops in Kennington Road are sadly empty. The dark evenings have prevented me from taking interesting photographs of the area, which was part of the intention for this blog. When I get home in the evening, it's already dark! Bring on the summer...

Oh yes, and looming large and long on the horizon is a nasty planning application for a building on 81 Black Prince Road. Now I really am not opposed to new developments. I'm actively in favour of new houses, flats, commercial property when built in an appropriate style. What I really dislike though is huge buildings, of no particular merit that do not fit the surrounds, which in all respects describes the proposed development on Black Prince Road. Quite why anybody thinks a 23 storey building appropriate for that location is a mystery to me. If you want to see the planning application, click here. I do have a vested interest, in that I might lose some views from where I currently as a result of the building (I could just move!), but I'm not too keen on the new 43 storey Strata building in Elephant and Castle either. I just do not like very tall buildings in locations other than Canary Wharf. Anyhow, if you might be affected by 81 Black Prince Road, and want to object, you can do so online using the link above.

I'm going to try and attend the Prince's Ward Councillors coffee morning on 17th January in case there are some interesting SE11 people or issues to discuss, and I'll report back on Prince's Ward news. I think it's quite novel, trying to meet people In Real Life (IRL), rather than doing an internet thing. But then people are always reminding me that not everybody that needs to access a councillor either owns a computer or would be capable of using one.