OPENING STATEMENT TO THE BONDWAY INQUIRY
By
DAVID BOARDMAN
On behalf of
The KENNINGTON ASSOCIATION
It is a commonplace of the planning system that applications are to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Community institutions such as ours tend to place great emphasis on the plan, as in many cases they have helped shape it – developers such as the applicant often seem to emphasise the material considerations warranting departure, or with well funded eloquence subtly argue that the plan always meant something other than previously thought.
The Vauxhall community has not been well served by the planning system. The Vauxhall gyratory traffic system is universally detested by residents, and the competent authority, Transport for London, fails repeatedly to engage with the community about what if anything can be done about it. This creates what the applicants are pleased to call a “traffic dominated backwater”, which they seek to “repopulate” with their proposed residential tower, to transform the area into a vibrant Central London destination. As it happens the existing community feels itself to be quite vibrant at present, thank you very much, nor do they regard themselves as a backwater, in need of “repopulation” like some failed colony. But there is plenty of aspiration for regeneration, and a recognition that, lying as Vauxhall does so close to central London, in an Opportunity Area, that regeneration will inevitably involve more intensive development.
It now seems clear, following the Secretary of State’s decision to allow the 180m St George’s Tower back in 2005, that some form of cluster of tall buildings would emerge at Vauxhall. It is sobering to think, five years on, as the foundation works for that Tower are just beginning, that at the time, the Minister was prepared to trade some damage to heritage assets for more affordable housing and the hope of boosting regeneration. The crucial issue for the people of Vauxhall is “what sort of cluster?”, and here again the planning system has been lacking in providing useful guidance. Draft documents abound, including a draft Vauxhall Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) from Lambeth Council, and the draft Vauxhall Nine Elms Battersea (VNEB) Opportunity Area Planning Framework, but as Council witnesses have asserted in their proofs, little weight can be ascribed to them until formal examination or adoption. In other parts of the VNEB area, a limited number of developers have substantial parcels of land at their disposal, often of tens of hectares, and are coming forward with considered schemes for mixed development and a substantial public realm component. But land holdings in Vauxhall are fragmented, and individual developers may only have sites a fraction of a hectare in size. In those circumstances, it is all the more important that there are urban design studies to inform the shape and scale of any emerging cluster, as the CABE/EH guidance on Tall Buildings enjoins, to prevent a piecemeal free for all.
In our original proof, we lamented the lack of such a design study, and the applicant, in rebuttal, comforted us with the observation that the findings of an unpublished design study had informed the formulation of the draft Vauxhall SPD. Now we find we can in our turn comfort the applicant, through the miracle of the Freedom of Information Act, by placing before the Inquiry extracts from the actual Vauxhall Urban Design Study, rescued from Lambeth Council’s archive. And that study argues for a different cluster than the one sketched in the draft VNEB Framework, generally rather lower to prevent interference with heritage assets, centred on a tower on the Vauxhall Triangle (Vauxhall Cross) site, with any Bondway Tower subordinated to it. This would reduce the scale and massing of any Bondway Tower considerably, as advised by English Heritage in their evidence, and we shall be urging the merits of this approach in our evidence.
Other aspects of this application are equally problematic. On what is intended by the adopted Lambeth UDP to be a site with at least 30% of employment floor space, the applicant manages only 10%. On what is a Key Industrial and Business Area (KIBA), the supposed regeneration actually manages to reduce employment floor space by 40%. In an area the draft VNEB Framework designates for employment driven regeneration, the applicant offers 90% residential floor space. With a density of 1297 units per hectare, the application not only exceeds the upper limit of 405 units per hectare of the Mayor’s Plan Density Matrix, but even exceeds the 500 units per hectare upper limits of Design for London Report “Living at Superdensity”. It will be interesting to hear the applicant’s subtle arguments for such material departures.
As regards the design of the Tower itself, it is plain that for once, CABE and EH find themselves on opposite sides of the argument. As noted, EH is exercised by the impact on heritage assets, including the long distance views of the Westminster Heritage Site, and prefers a reduction in scale, height and massing. CABE, on the other hand, broadly favours the building design, while expressing reservations, where it comes down to earth, that the building and the public realm were imperfectly engaged. Furthermore, the applicant has missed the plan target of amenity space of 10 sqm per flat by 1 sqm, which he then seeks to make up by providing an amenity floor which residents have to pay to use, in a manner discriminatory between residents of market and affordable flats. For these and other reasons set out in our proofs, we do not think the design of the Tower passes muster.
On the issue of affordable housing, the Rule 6 parties have not had full disclosure of the original justification for departing from the 50/40% targets of plan policy, and we consider that the interests of justice require that such material is disclosed to this Inquiry and all the parties. We remain sceptical as to the accuracy of the estimates of market sale proceeds, and doubt that even the proposed review will cure matters, as it appears it will itself take place well before sales actually take place. We therefore favour a second review, to take place when say 90% of the market flats have been sold, to audit the assumptions made, and provide an additional commuted sum to the Council, if that proves warranted.
We share the concerns of EH and Westminster Council as to the impact of this massive tower on its heritage surroundings, and in particular Vauxhall Park. We doubt if Mr Coleman’s lush descriptions of its impact will find any resonance with residents, and towards the end of these proceedings, we will find out, when we ask them.
As we note in our proof, despite the excellent transport accessibility at Vauxhall, judged by PTAL rating, there is a significant problem in actually getting to and from the Underground because of gate line and escalator capacity. The applicant’s transport study was unable to include Vauxhall Sky Gardens in his cumulative traffic impact study, which concentrated on train capacity, which is not in issue, as opposed to gate line and escalator capacity, which is. Already, the congestion at Vauxhall Underground is giving rise to sporadic gate closures, and this will get worse, as development continues. This and subsequent developments should address these issues, else, as we note, at some stage, congestion will trump accessibility.
Finally, the issue of open space. You will know, Sir, that Lambeth as a whole is deficient in open space, and this proposed development lies in an Open Space Deficiency Area under the adopted UDP. A development of 376 flats exacerbates that deficiency by 1.4 hectares, a sizeable fraction of the area of Vauxhall Park itself. CABE thinks that the success of any cluster at Vauxhall is dependent on the implementation of a 40m by 100m public space immediately to the west of the application site. Such a space was to be found in the draft Vauxhall SPD, but significantly, no longer features in the draft VNEB Framework. The applicant favours such a space, cheerfully suggesting that the Council should designate his neighbours frontage to achieve it. We think the applicant should put his money where his mouth is, and offer an appropriate sum to the Council under S106 to help acquire such a site. This would also accord with the Lambeth adopted SPD for S106 payments, which expressly contemplates “additional higher financial contributions will be sought on a park or open space project basis from commercial and residential developments in [the Vauxhall and Waterloo opportunity areas”. Were this application otherwise to proceed, we consider that a much enhanced S106 payment would be warranted, to mitigate the open space deficiency it exacerbates, and help provide the new open space necessary to make the development succeed. A symbolic payment of £10m would be a good start!
We look forward to exploring these issues in the course of the Inquiry.
David Boardman
Chair
Kennington Association Planning Forum
20 July 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment