Land Adjacent to Creative House, 124b Prince of Wales Drive SW8 4BJ 2025/4038

The Battersea Society objects to this application for four town houses on the site adjacent to Creative House within the Battersea Park Conservation Area. While we accept there are legal issues relating to leases on Creative House we consider that in planning terms it would be far preferable for the entire corner site to be redeveloped as a comprehensive scheme, given its significant location as an entry point to both the Battersea Park Conservation Area and Nine Elms.

We consider that the design and positioning of the four-house terrace on the site do not reflect the objectives of LP3C in that they will not enhance the character of the conservation area, in particular their rather forced roof designs supposedly to match the adjoining church. We consider that the pre app flat roof designs were preferable in that they reflected other recent developments locally and had the added benefit of solar panels. Details of colour and impact of the extensive zinc panels would need to be provided were final approval to be given as it is difficult to assess the overall impact of the frontage of the quartet.

The siting of the terrace to abut directly onto Battersea Park Road will produce a dead wall on an already narrow and unattractive stretch of heavily used pavement. This runs counter to LP Policy 7B which in relation to new development on small sites calls for sensitive integration into street frontages. It is odd that at the Prince of Wales Drive end of the terrace there is a gap which is to be used as a bin store for Creative House right up against the new housing. Reorienting of the terrace might provide a more sensitive use of the site. We also note TfL concerns about the impact of construction traffic on adjacent roads and routes. Any necessary closure of the pavement on Battersea Park Road would create significant issues given its use as a direct route to the Power Station and beyond. A construction management plan including hoarding location is essential.

While we are anxious that small sites are used to provide additional housing, these proposals clearly need further refinement and reconsideration of positioning of any development on the site before approval is given.