Tonight:
5°c
Planners set to topple towers in Clapham
Ruth Bloomfield18 May 2009
A £4 billion scheme for London's busiest railway station should be abandoned, planners have said.
Council officials have backed objectors who say the Heart of Battersea scheme at Clapham Junction does not fit into the area.
Proposals include two 42-storey, 142-metre residential towers, which would have 556 homes, a shopping centre, two station entrances and health centre. Wandsworth councillors will vote on the scheme on Wednesday.
The towers are by architects ColladoCollins, but more than 600 experts, residents and groups have objected to the plans. Mike Roden, of the Battersea Society, said today: “There is a lot wrong with this application — they have not included any affordable housing, they have not taken into account the fact that this area is a hub for buses and there is a log jam already most mornings.”
Martin Linton, MP for Battersea, describes the towers as “out of context” with Clapham while CABE, the Government's architecture advisors, said they were “ungainly”.
Wandsworth council described the plans as some of the most contentious it has ever seen.
Planners object to the scheme because of the lack affordable housing and the transport issues raised by the Battersea Society.
Developer Metro Shopping Fund — a joint venture between Delancey and Land Securities — claims its proposals are the only realistic option for the area.
Reader views (4)
The application has now been withdrawn, which probably means that the applicants and their consultants wish to review their options before submitting a new application.
Notwitstanding the comments of Mr Clark from Scotland the whole point about Clapham Junction is that all parties have previously agreed that it urgently needs regeneration meaning investment. This is already a major transport hub already there, something that will never be at North Battersea, and because the quality of a part of the town centre is less than satisfactory.
Investment will not happen unless there is some profit; unfortunately objectors often conclude that profits from development are vast when the reality is frequently the reverse. The development cycle on schemes like this is so long that investors in today's market often prefer to put their money elsewhere.
Clapham Junction only happened in the first place following intense speculation on railways. There has to be a scheme for this site, and that will eventually emerge. You can't please all of the people all of the time, but local partnerships, such as the Clapham Junction Town Centre Partnership, can provide the means of achieving an end result that all can be proud of, and allows investors a reasonable return on their risk. The extent of risk is exemplified by the work that has already gone in, and that should not be put to waste.
The council policy of establishing town centre partnerships has borne fruit elsewhere, as it can here.
- David Rosemont, London, 19/05/2009 08:58
Report abuse
Nobby Clark>For the same reason, (and in addition in direct view of a London Heritage site) the 250m the developers wanted to build has been scrapped. instead they came back last month with a more reasonable plan as it look:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23675499-details/New+designs+for+Battersea+Power+Station+unveiled/article.do
But the big news this evening is actually that the developers have decided to withdraw their application for the Clapham Junction twin towers.
In their statement the company (MSF) said:
"The Fund has worked hard with your Council and other consultees to put forward a comprehensive scheme which addressed fully the key objectives of your Council.
We are deeply disappointed therefore that the report to the Committee was not able to give the proposal its backing.
Without it the Fund will not be pursuing these applications, as it strives to work in concord with the local authorities in whose boroughs it invests."
- Cyril Richert, London, 19/05/2009 01:16
Report abuse
First, I must say that, albeit the Planning Officer's report recommending refusal, this is up to the Planning Committee to decide on Wednesday 20 May.
So, the good news is that the officers’ recommendation is against, which will probably be decisive. It is probably also good that the grounds are pretty extensive, namely insufficient benefit to public transport, omission of affordable housing not justified, premature in advance of approved scheme for redevelopment of Station.
BUT actually the planning officer gives his blessing for the construction of huge tower blocks in the area (p42 of the report).
However most of the now 800 objections 
have shown with long full arguments why this what not appropriate for the location. Words such as ‘alien’, ‘obscene’, ‘eyesore’, ‘monsterous’, ‘aggressive/confrontational’ and ‘brutalistic’ crop up too often in the objection letters to be given special mention.
Notwithstanding the role that the Council might have played in encouraging a proposal of this nature on the site, the time has come to recognise that this was a mistake and that any redevelopment of the site should be on a far more sympathetic scale taking account of the location’s natural and unique purpose as a transport interchange and its opportunities for attracting business.
It depends now on the members of the Planning Committee to represent the view of their constituents.
- Cyril Richert, London, 18/05/2009 14:21
Report abuse
Why not build this scheme at Battersea Power Station instead?
- Nobby Clark, Perth, Scotland, 18/05/2009 13:35
Report abuse
