Victory at Bondway
1 On 9 February, Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, handed down his decision in the Bondway/Octave Tower case, agreeing with his Planning Inspector, and dismissing the developer’s appeal against Lambeth Council’s rejection of his planning application. The community of Vauxhall, which expressed its opposition forthrightly throughout the process, can give itself a well deserved pat on the back, and we are pleased we were able to help articulate in planning parlance that community’s views through the many stages of paperwork and the three weeks of public inquiry back in July 2010. But decisions like this get scrutinised minutely by developers, to see which arguments might work for them in future cases, and which might not, so it is worth examining the decision in a bit more detail.
2 The main issues are conveniently set out in the Secretary of State’s conclusion, at para 26 of his decision letter:
· The Secretary of State considers that provision of a substantial number of new homes, of which at least 20% would be affordable, and a likely increase in employment numbers at this highly sustainable location are significant benefits of the proposal. [So this is in principle a sensible place for residential development and on this site, 20% affordable housing is acceptable, despite the headline policy calling for 40%, because of a “viability” study that says that more would prejudice the economic viability of the overall development. And an estimated increase in “better quality” employment would trump the actual reduction in employment floor space that the proposed development would have made.]
· He considers that the design of the proposed tower is of high quality in many respects and would not harm the wider historic environment. [Here the Secretary of State adopts the views of the Inspector that the proposed Bondway Tower would have been a high quality design, in itself, in many respects, with interesting textures. The Inspector also systematically reviews the impact of the proposed Tower on all the local conservation areas (particularly Vauxhall Conservation Area and Park), listed buildings and the Westminster World Heritage Site, and found it acceptable. If a Tower as tall and bulky as Bondway would have passed muster, at least on this ground, then any argument limited just to visual impact is unlikely to be successful in future.]
· He also considers that, in principle, the appeal site is an appropriate location for a tall building. [This accords with the now adopted Core Strategy, and is consistent with the unadopted Tall Building Design Study for Vauxhall of 2009. But as a tall building counts, on this site, as anything in excess of 30m tall (the proposed Bondway Tower would have been 149m tall), there is plenty of room for argument, and scope for sensible planning guidance, on just how tall and where, tall buildings will be acceptable in future.]
· However, he considers that the absence of complementary public open space from the proposal is unacceptable, [This is the killer argument, and is going to set the terms of debate for all the other high density developments at Vauxhall for the foreseeable future – the Secretary of State and the Inspector both put great emphasis on a part of Planning Policy Statement Number One covering Design (PPS1 – Sustainable Development), a piece of overall planning guidance that otherwise might be regarded as a bland statement of motherhood and apple pie – “High quality and inclusive design should create well-mixed and integrated developments which avoid segregation and have well-planned public spaces that bring people together and provide opportunities for physical activity and recreation.”].
· that the tower would be overbearing in relation to its local surroundings despite some relief being provided by its form, [so arguments about local impact still have traction – per the Inspector at para 551: “Moreover, without associated public space, the visual mass of the building would be overbearing in relation to its local surroundings”, even though he regards the visual impact on the nearby Vauxhall Park as “acceptable”]
· that there are insufficient opportunities for pedestrian movement linked to the wider public realm, [a criticism of the Bondway design was that it did nothing directly to encourage permeability of the railway embankment which divides the centre of Vauxhall]
· that the absence of adequate dedicated play space within or very near the building is materially harmful, [even though the proposed development nominally met the target for overall private amenity space for its residents, the failure to earmark on-site chidrens’ play space within that total, and reliance instead on Vauxhall Park, counted against it. This is going to be an important argument in relation to other proposals, especially if they fail even to meet the total amenity space target.]
· and that the intensity of use to which Vauxhall Park would be subject would erode its recreational function and character. [Given the categoric way in which this argument is formulated, this is going to make the provision of new public space a touchstone for much future development at Vauxhall – as the Inspector says (para 658 et seq): “The Park is not large and is well used. Although the functions of a park and a public square differ, inevitably the Park would come under increasing pressure were public spaces not provided within the area of redevelopment to the west. The effect would be cumulative as further elements were added to the projected cluster of towers. This would be so irrespective of financial contributions to improve the Park and its play facilities. Under the proposals, no complementary public space would be provided, nor is any assured in the future. Without it, the pressure on Bondway, the surrounding areas and the Park would be unacceptable.” But the Inspector acquits the proposed Tower on grounds of overshadowing and overlooking, saying bluntly that you cannot expect privacy in a public park. So these sorts of argument are not likely to be persuasive in future.]
· For these reasons the Secretary of State concludes that the proposal is in conflict with the development plan and with the aims of PPS1, PPS3, and PPG17. He has taken into account the benefits which would be offered by the proposal, but considers that these benefits do not outweigh the significant conflict with the development plan and the aims of national policies in other respects. [So, as is clear from comments above, no amount of S106 contribution could have sweetened the Bondway proposals enough to make them acceptable, in the absence of new open space]
3 We are pleased to see, as we have argued earlier, that this decision puts the provision of new public space at the heart of the argument about the future development of Vauxhall. It is notable however, despite the community concern about congestion in the access to Vauxhall underground station, that the good nominal public transport accessibility level of Vauxhall (measured in PTALs!) still gives carte blanche to further development. The accepted arguments here emphasise surplus capacity on trains (“only two extra passengers per underground train”), while supposing access issues (gateline closures, escalator capacity etc) can readily be dealt with by small TfL improvements. But the latest TfL estimate for gateline improvements is £18m, currently unfunded, and we are going to have to improve our analysis, if proper weight is to be given in future planning decisions to this issue.
David Boardman
Chair
Kennington Association Planning Forum
12 February 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment