Bondway Tower in Vauxhall refused by Secretary of State - inadequate provision of open space

In March last year, Lambeth Council refused to grant planning permission for a proposed 42-storey tower in Vauxhall, known as Bondway.  The Bondway's developers (London and Regional) appealed to the Planning Inspectorate, and a public enquiry was held in July/August last year.  On account of a conflict over the size of the proposal (over 150 units) which fits with government plans to create more housing and the perceived risk to a World Heritage site, the appeal was passed to the Secretary of State (Eric Pickles) for a decision to be made.  The Planning Inspector recommended that London and Regional's appeal be dismissed and the Secretary of State agreed.  Consequently, the ruling is that the Bondway Tower should not be built.

The Secretary of State considered that the proposed Bondway's greatest shortcoming was the relationship of the building to its surroundings.  Whilst the building was considered sustainable and with certain design merits, it lacked "well planned public open spaces" and the proposals apparently also failed to provide adequate pedestrian links to the wider public realm.  In addition, the "visual mass" of the building was felt to be "overbearing in relation to its surroundings".  Also, the Secretary of State agreed with the Planning Inspector that the lack of amenity space (particularly children's play area) could not be solved by the developer acquiring more land.

Such a conclusion should alarm developers who are based anywhere within the Vauxhall Nine Elms Opportunity Area, since much of the open space available to the surrounding buildings is likely to be provided (or so we've been told) in the form of a linear park.  If Vauxhall Park (and surrounds) are judged not to be enough public open space for the Bondway, then it may well be that additional public space will have to be found (which means "given up" by developers) in order to progress any of the new developments within Vauxhall/Nine Elms, where the amount of open space is said to be very low.  Of course, it also means that the Vauxhall Square developers (CLS) have been quite clever with their proposals, which include the incorporation of a large public square...

Concerning the Westminster World Heritage site, the Inspector felt that whilst no assets would be directly affected, the proposals might affect the settings of certain (but not all) listed buildings, conservation areas, registered parks and Westminster itself.  (That turn of phrase seems very unclear to me, especially when the former government controversially allowed the construction of the Vauxhall Tower by St George.  However, I think it does appear to represent a change in government policy which all developers will have to consider).

One point of concern for many local people has been the issue of overshadowing by tall towers.  Neither the Secretary of State nor the Planning Inspector concede ground on this point.  On the contrary, they argue that "Vauxhall Park... would not be significantly harmed by overshadowing" and that "privacy cannot be expected in a public park".  The point that is accepted is one of over-use.  The sheer number of people that would end up using Vauxhall Park would "erode its recreational function and the character of its open spaces".  It looks as though the argument against the Bondway was won almost entirely on arguments about open space.

There were some positives.  20% of housing supply as affordable was praised, as was the likely increase in employment numbers and indeed the "design of the tower".  Note that the site is still considered an "appropriate location" for tall buildings, so don't expect the end of this matter.  I imagine Residential Land will simply have to overhaul their plans to better provide for improved open space and pedestrian access.  However, it was felt by the Secretary of State (despite the good design) that the tower would be "overbearing" in relation to local surroundings.  The benefits are not said to outweigh the conflict with Lambeth's development plan, so this tower will not be going ahead in proposed form.  (Of course, there's room to appeal again through the High Court, but I imagine it would likely be cheaper just to re-work the plans).

The matter of transport is more interesting, and whilst the Inspector and the Secretary of State seem to think that the development promotes a reduction in the need to travel and use of sustainable transport choices, neither of them enter into discussion about transport capacity, which is a point continually raised by users of Vauxhall tube station....  One of my Twitter followers posted this scene at Vauxhall tube the other day with the caption "Vauxhall station this morning. Not an unusual occurrence":

I'd argue that this decision represents a significant victory for the local people who intervened and made representations against the building at the enquiry during the summer. Yes, most residents (myself included) support sensible redevelopment and regeneration in the heart of Vauxhall. There's room for improvement. However, such improvement should not be undertaken at the cost of current residents or in a manner that seeks to exploit public amenities. I'm delighted that the Secretary of State has dismissed the appeal.

Thanks to Tradescant blog, the full report of the Bondway appeal can be found here.

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 :-)

Bondway - Appeal against planning refusal (Part 1: Opening Statement)

The Bondway Tower planning appeal began on 20th July and was presented at Lambeth Town Hall.  Many representatives for the local community met (headed by David Boardman of Kennington Association Planning Forum) to prepare several lengthy documents and then  present them at the Appeal.  Viva Vauxhall mentioned the appeal a while ago, and the documents (which present a strong argument against the erection of the 149 metre Bondway Tower) are available on the Kennington Association Planning blog.

What I'm going to do in a series of blog posts is try to distill the contents of some of the Bondway documents.  The information that David Boardman and co. revealed through a Freedom of Information request from Lambeth is fascinating and I think readers should be aware of the sheer scale of the proposed Bondway development.  The Appeal campaign (mounted by many represenatives from the local community) has probably not received enough exposure, due to its necessarily dense and detailed documents.  I've tried to summarise the info. and only publicise the interesting bits, which will appear over the next week or so in a Bondway Appeal series.  My comments are in red.

Bondway Appeal Series, Part 1 (opening statement):
20th July - Opening Statement to the Bondway Enquiry Document:

The Vauxhall community has not been well served by the planning system.  The gyratory is despised by residents and TFL has failed to engage with the community about how it might be improved.  The Bondway developers hope to "repopulate" what they call a "traffic dominated backwater".  Boardman notes that the area is not in need of repopulation, but would benefit from regeneration. 

Following the Secretary of State's decision to allow the St George Wharf Tower (180m), it's inevitable that developers would want to build a cluster, but planning guidance is not clear how this should happen.  Planning documents are only available in draft eg. Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea Opportunity Planning Framework (VNEB), but have not been formally adopted.  The Kennington Association Planning Forum complained that there is no outline plan for the area, but were informed by the Bondway developers that one did exist, and had been used to write the Vauxhall SPD!  A FOI request forced Lambeth Council to reveal the document (named "Vauxhall Urban Design Study").  However, the Urban Design Study revealed a plan for a different cluster of buildings to the one in the VNEB report. 

Ok, if you're still with me (apologies for the acronyms), it appears that the VNEB (document commissioned by the Mayor of London) and the SPD (document commissioned by Lambeth Council) formulated two different plans of what a cluster of tall buildings in Vauxhall would look like.  Surprisingly (given Boris' view on tall buildings), the VNEB study suggested taller buildings in Vauxhall than the SPD study. 

Indeed, the SPD study suggested that the cluster be based around the Vauxhall Triangle / Vauxhall Cross site (that's Kylun's site) with Bondway Tower being shorter than it. Additionally, the Lambeth study (SPD) suggested 40% employment space, and Bondway developers have submitted plans for 10%. More crucially, the Mayor's Density Plan suggests that units should be built at 405 units per hectare.  The Design for London report gives a wider limit of 500 units per hectare.  Bondway Developers wish to house people at 1297 per hectare.  This would have serious consequences for residents living in the buildings, and one would imagine that tenants offered social housing would suffer the most (as they inevitably do in such developments).

Boardman noted that Bondway had not provided reasons for departing from providing the originally agreed percentage of social housing.   A concern was also raised about the negative impact the proposed Bondway tower would have on Vauxhall Park.  Additionally, Vauxhall Underground Station is at capacity due to gate line and escalator capacity (gates already have to be closed at times, during rush hour).  Finally, Lambeth (as a borough) has an Open Space deficiency.  Lambeth through the SPD had suggested that additional green space be added to the west of the Bondway site.  Bondway are in favour of this, but want it added using their neighbour's land.  The Kennington Association Planning Forum consider that Bondway should offer Section 106 funding for the purchase of such land, and that the Section 106 monies payable by the applicant should be a considerably larger sum than is ordinarily the case to buy land to mitigate the space deficiency.  They suggest the figure of £10 million.

Bondway - Ongoing pollution, and student accommodation turned down

Whilst there is focus on the topic of Bondway and the Bondway Tower, I should also note three other points of interest for readers in the area:

1.  Back in January 2010, Markvauxhall mentioned on Twitter that an application had been put in for Student accommodation in Vauxhall.  I didn't think it was contentious, since the night time revellers already cause lots of noise and I thought students couldn't make it worse. The proposed building was quite low-rise but it seems to have been rejected on the grounds of:

* It being unknown whether intensification would have an impact on existing residential development
* Failure to provide mixed dwellings
* Failure to provide affordable housing (a bit of a joke for the poor residents who might have to live alongside the students!!)
* The residence not being near to the University it would serve (contrary to Council's UDP)

2.  Air quality results at the Bondway monitoring station seem to be significantly worse than for other parts of London for at least some portions of the day.  That's rather concerning, considering all of the new residential development that is likely to commence in the area and the increase in traffic likely to take place. 

The folks at London air have more details (I obtained the graph from them), and I confess that I've no idea what exactly PM10 Particulate is, but I hope it's not /really/ bad for humans because we seem to have a freak peak of it on the 23rd(ish) of March.

3.  A new Pret-A-Manger has spawned at the bottom of Aquarius House (the affordable section of St George Wharf) and appears to be opening soon in SE11.  That's two new sandwich places in the space of as many weeks (remember Deep Blue is new too).

Bondway Tower - Council Refused Planning Permission

Stockwell News has already commented and I'm rather behind the times with this one, but contrary to the permission granted to Vauxhall Sky Gardens last week, the revised Bondway planning permission application was refused by Lambeth Planning Committee.

Various community groups turned up to make representation on some of the following grounds:

* Density (building would be more densely populated than allowed in the London Plan)

* Building is too wide and too tall, and thus detrimental to the public realm

* Not enough employment use floorspace is provided for (as specified in the Lambeth Plan), considering that the building would be within the Vauxhall Key Industrial and Business Area

* The development is located within an area of public open space deficiency, identified in the Lambeth Plan. The Lambeth Section 106 report asks that enhanced contributions to park/open space projects from commercial and residential developments in these opportunity areas. Unfortunately, no contributions were sought.

* Lambeth schools are unable to accommodate the demands placed upon them by population growth

* No parking is provided for the block, which would mean the friends and family of visitors would try to park locally, exacerbating a difficult parking situation in Vauxhall. (This is a no win situation... if parking is provided, people complain about traffic and extra pollution).

* Overcrowding and gate closure at Vauxhall underground station.

* The building's huge shadow (due to its size) would cast a shadow on surrounding residential areas after 3pm - 4pm, and I doubt the current residents are happy about that.

Guess who was still recommending that the building be granted planning permission? That would be Lambeth Council Officers.

It seems, somehow, that Lambeth Councillors suffer from what I might label an "impotence to influence" that nonetheless allows for an ongoing expansion of the Lambeth empire. The views of local Councillors have no more weight than those of the local community. In any case, the Council know that, if there is no local objection (or local objection is not organised), the officers will just go ahead and recommend any new building, however inappropriate. The Councillors get to look good and say things like "we consulted the local community, and then we opposed the development", in the knowledge that the officers will recommend and the Borough will grow anyway. It matters not whether Labour or the Lib Dems are in power because the officers don't change, and the Borough's empire expands indefinitely. Fortunately, Lambeth Planning Committee, although presumably heavily influenced by the officers report, do still act independently (as in this example), but this won't be the last of this one....

Apparently, the developer only sent one spokesman along to the meeting, who declined to respond to the above criticisms, made by members of the public. Additionally, the Planning Committee were somewhat concerned that the officers still recommended acceptance, despite the Planning Committee's advice about what needed to be changed.

I get the impression that this one will be back on the table at some point with minor modifications re. open space and density (which will result in the reduction of public housing), and the whole thing will kick off again. Watch this space.

[I'm aware that some objections were made by David Boardman, of Kennington Association Planning Forum, and Michael Ball of Waterloo Development Group, and I'm sure that the Vauxhall Society must have made their views known.  However, I'd appreciate additional comments about others present so that I can give credit to those who put considerable effort into preparing and turning up for these meetings.  Also, if anybody spoke in favour of the building, it would be good to add that info. for the record and for balance.]

Dog snatching, Kennington fete, a new SE11 blog and former Lilian Baylis...

OK, I admit it, I went on holiday for a week, away from SE11 to paddle in the seas of the South West. And I didn't log on to a computer or blog or touch Twitter for any of that time! Obviously, it has been a busy week for SE11 lurkers... Here is a quick summary, for regular readers who failed to notice local things over the past week:

1. The Metropolitan Police conducted a puppy/dog grab from a residence in Renfrew Road, Kennington, where they discovered 6 pit bull puppies and 2 dangerous adult dogs. Kennington Association news blog have a link to the Evening Standard item here. It seems that the police seized about 20 dogs overall, but implies that these were from various South London addresses, rather than one address... Even still, I wouldn't be surprised if the neighbours complained about the noise from 8 dogs!

2. Kennington fete. I hope everybody had a lovely day and enjoyed the weather at Kennington fete in Cleaver Square. I really wish I hadn't missed that, but hopefully there will be another next year. Twitter user El_Nacnud has some photos, of the type that I would have taken had I been there. Please leave some comments with more links.

3. In less than the blink of an eye, somebody has formed another SE11 blog! There's always room for more local bloggers, and the new blog can be found at SE11life.com It comes from the keyboard of the esteemed MayorWatch blog and is written by Martin Hoscik (I'm presuming he is also quite local).

4. And for really dull hyperlocal news, (only relevant to 34082342 commuters, after all), there are some Twittery rumours floating around that lift number 2 at Kennington tube has broken (only about 2 weeks after the six month refurb). I notice that somebody finally had the presence of mind to stick a piece of paper over the sign that says that the stairs are to be used "only in an emergency".

Anything else??? Oh yes.

I'm not too sure what happened at the Special Council Meeting earlier in the week, re. all of the leaseholder issues. More info would be appreciated so please leave a comment re. the council's handling of the matter... What is due to happen next?

It appears that Viva Vauxhall had their meeting and have come out as opposed to the Bondway tower (there's a surprise!), but there's more here about that with further contact details if you want to be involved.

A certain amount of friction appears to have been generated re. the former Lilian Baylis site between ward councillors, various local resident groups and other interested parties. I'm not at liberty to paste every piece of correspondence I receive, but I am particularly interested in hearing from anybody at Lambeth Council who might be able to comment more fully on the future of the site, rather than issuing rather wishy washy leaflets without consultation dates or any mention of governance. I think the initial community consultation on the future of the site was rather weak (perhaps it was conducted at a time when residents were less vociferous), but we're now mid-recession, so perhaps the possibilities for ongoing usage might have changed. I rather get the impression that the discussions are behind closed doors, and there is no longer any room for community input, but watch this space...

Tall Tower Update

I refer back to my post on tall buildings currently being offered to the area for those people that need an update about what is at stake here.

In the meantime, the developers held a consultation on the Bondway building, which I was unfortunately unable to attend. Fortunately, the writer of Viva Vauxhall did go, and has revealed that the development might contain 376 flats (or nearly 1000 people) if it were to go ahead as the developers hope. See here for more info. on what the building would consist of, and here for sketch drawings.

Viva Vauxhall also notes that comments might still be open (even past the deadline of 24th June) on the Bondway Tower, if you've not yet had a chance to comment. See this post for details about who to contact.

Also (this one may be more for Kennington/Albert Embankment folk), there is to be a consultation held on 8 Albert Embankment:

Project: Redevelop former headquarters of London Fire Brigade - 8 Albert Embankment.
Consultation dates/Times: Thursday 25th June (16:00 - 20:00), Friday 26th (15:00 - 18:00) and 27th (10:00 - 13:00).
Developer: Native Land and Lifschutz Davidson Sandilands

Since the Albert Embankment technically falls in SE1, London-SE1 have provided a news item on the matter here. However, I'm going to cover a number of tall buildings in the vicinity because quite a number of them affect residents of rather different constituent areas.

69 - 71 Bondway SW8 - Planning Permission sought

Planning permission is currently being sought for: Bondway Commercial Centre, 69 - 71 Bondway, London SW8 1SQ. Application number is 09/01520/FUL and comments can be made by clicking the link. Vauxhall Bondway Ltd are proposing to develop a 42 storey building on the site. I think that would be of equivalent height to the Strata Building in Elephant and Castle. Most peoples' question is "Where's Bondway?". It's here:



I'm not sure how this one slipped under the radar (you have until 24/6/2009 to comment), so I am going to refer you to the Viva Vauxhall blog (which represents the roads around Bonnington Square) where they have an excellent post which lists their reservations about the development and might give you some basis with which to support or oppose the planning permission request.

The building is technically not in SE11. It's some way over the border in SW8. However, when proposed buildings are so tall, they impact on everybody that lives locally. I imagine the building will overshadow Fentiman Road, Bonnington Square and Vauxhall Grove. The question is... exactly which part of Vauxhall is it considered acceptable to place tall buildings? It was clarified at the Kennington Oval and Vauxhall AGM last night that it was considered appropriate in the draft Vauxhall Supplementary Planning document to raise tall buildings around Vauxhall station. The concept of what counts as Vauxhall station is somewhat hazy. I've read the draft Vauxhall Supplementary Planning document, but haven't given it the amount of analysis that I gave to the draft core plan for the Local Development Framework. It looks like it's time to go back to the Vauxhall Supplementary Planning document and provide a summary. When I've done that, I'll post it here to be of assistance for those commenting on local planning proposals.

It's worth mentioning at this point that the Vauxhall Supplementary Planning document will remain in "draft" stage until one of the wider documents related to the London Plan is released for consultation (in order to check that the two line up and Lambeth aren't heading in a different direction from the rest of London). That document won't be consulted until September 2009 so the draft Vauxhall SPD will remain in draft format for some time.

Edit (11/6/2009): Tradescant Road blog has also commented and posted a helpful picture of various elevations of the proposed development.