The Glassmill 1 Battersea Bridge Road SW11 3BZ (2024/1322)
The Battersea Society objects strongly to this application for a 34-storey tower on a small but very prominent site facing the River Thames next to Battersea Bridge. The case put forward by the developers for their proposal is summarised in five text boxes on page 30 of the Design and Access Statement, with the title “Optimising the Opportunity”. But as set out below the case is flawed both in logic and in substance.
We also wish to draw attention to the concerns expressed by the Design Review Panel, which we share, register concern at the proposed housing mix, comment on the detrimental effect of such a development on traffic and transport in the area, and note the manipulative manner in which views on the proposals were sought from the Community.
Development capacity
The text begins by admitting, extraordinarily, that the small site has " limited development capacity", which is clearly right. But the company set up to develop the site, Promontoria Battersea Ltd, has agreed to pay £45m for it, and the company’s accounts make clear that this sum is based on the “probability” that planning permission will be granted. Initial funding has been provided by the Dutch parent company Promontoria Holding 353 B.V, an associate of the US company Cerberus Capital Management; and Cerberus Global Investments B.V. has agreed to enter into a joint venture with Rockwell Project Management Ltd to acquire the site and deliver the development. The agreed price for acquiring the site is an obvious driver for the scale of the proposed development, which takes up virtually all the footprint of the existing office building. The company argues that a tall building is required because keeping to the height of the existing six storey building “would limit housing delivery”. That is an absurd claim. One might as well say that any house or other building in Battersea has “limited development capacity”, so the only solution is to knock it down and build a 34-storey tower of flats on it.
Site Capacity
The developers’ second claim is that optimising the site capacity provides more housing, including 35% affordable (45 units), with a 70/30 of these split in favour of social rent. Like the first claim, this is totally unrelated to the site: it could apply to any site anywhere. It should also be noted that all the affordable housing is stated to be “subject to viability”. There is no guarantee as to the amount of affordable housing to be provided.
Tall buildings
The developers’ third claim is that although the site is not in a tall building zone, that does not preclude building a tall tower. That may be true: planning is always a matter of weighing arms and benefits. But the developers need to show why it is appropriate to build a 34-storey tower when there is no building remotely as tall on the south bank of the Thames within two miles. There is no reference to the tall buildings policy D9 in the London Plan, and its requirements that tall buildings must make a positive contribution to the skyline or the local townscape, and that they should be proportionate to and reinforce the spatial hierarchy of the local and wider context. Nor does the proposal provide any explanation as to why Local Plan Policies LP 2 and LP4 should be set aside, with their references to
the need to avoid adverse impacts on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring buildings, including daylight and sunlight;
visual impacts and the need to respect key views, strategic landmarks and heritage assets;
spatial hierarchies and the need for tall buildings to be proportionate to the local environment and to avoid creating an overbearing impact on the local context; and
the Thames frontage and the Thames Policy Area where lower-height thresholds for referable planning applications apply; and the need to avoid impeding the outlook and amenity of residents of existing buildings as well as users of public spaces and the river frontage.
Outlook and amenity for residents and everyone who visits a wide area north and south of the river will be profoundly affected by the proposed tower, which will cast shadows over a large number of listed buildings and gardens on the north bank, as well as on Battersea Park and the two neighbouring conservation areas. In determining the application, the Council and its Planning Applications Committee will have to take careful note of the requirement inparagraphs 201 and 203c of the NPPF to consider the impact of the proposed tower on these heritage assets. In short, we can see no reason why the Council should not apply the Local Plan Policy LP4 C, which states that the Council will “seek to restrict proposals for tall buildings outside the identified tall building zones”.
Metropolitan marker
The developers’ fourth claim is that the site “provides an opportunity for a Metropolitan Marker” on the bend of the Thames, “marking the gateway into the Ransome’s Dock Focal Point of Activity” (which stretches from Albert Bridge to Battersea Bridge; elsewhere there is reference to a gateway into Battersea). The application provides no evidence why such a “marker” is needed, nor what value it will provide. The claim amounts to no more than that a 34-storey tower on a prominent site will be extremely prominent.
Public Realm
The developers’ fifth claim is that there will be improvements to the public realm. and a thriving area in line with the Local Plan vision for the riverside. But the addition to the public realm is extremely small, since the new building takes up virtually the whole footprint of the existing one. Indeed, there are several references in the DAS to the constraints of the site and its small footprint, which raises the question why it is thought suitable for such a large and over-ambitious building. The improvements to the Thames Path are minimal, and they do not meet the Local Plan Policy LP52, which requires that the path should be 6 metres wide. And as the Royal College of Art has noted, the space provided for commercial and/or cultural uses is very small.
Design
We are unpersuaded by the merits of the proposed design and support the conclusions of the Design Review Panel summarised as follows:
“We would expect a building of this scale to achieve a level of mitigation which is proportionate to its impact on the context and areas around. Unfortunately, we are not convinced the public benefits offered as mitigation are sufficient, and we still feel it seems overdevelopment on this tight and constrained plot.
Marker: As before, the Panel remains unconvinced that marking the bridge is an argument for a tall building in this location. The constrained site for the tower and the amenities offered do not mark a broader opportunity of placemaking for the wider community, which might be supported. Were the height of the tower and the podium to be reduced, the argument still stands. In architectural terms, the reduction might be seen as compromising the slenderness of the building.”
Housing Mix and standards
The table on p.12 of the planning statement shows that overall 27of the 142 units are one bedroom for either 1 or 2 people. A further 80 are 2 bedroom for either 3 or 4 people with 30 x 3 bedrooms for 4 people and 5 x 4 bedrooms for either 5 or 6 people. Quite apart from the fact that these numbers almost certainly rely on co-habiting adults to meet the occupancy targets, we object to the proportion of small flats. There is already a major Council development nearby offering starter homes. What is needed in Battersea, for both affordable and market sectors, is the opportunity for people to make their home long term rather than just at one stage of their life.
We note that drawings indicate that significant proportions of the affordable units will be single aspect, because of the admitted constraints of the site. This is not compliant with Local Plan Policy LP 27 B, and provides further evidence that what is proposed is the wrong building on the wrong site. It is unlikely that this development would be in any sense tenure blind.
Traffic and Transport
The site is on the approach to a very heavily used and narrow bridge with frequent tailbacks from all points of the compass. It is already hazardous for cyclists and without space for much in the way of cycle lanes. The bus routes are heavily used at peak times with those travelling north often already full when they arrive at Battersea Bridge. The space for pedestrians and cyclists crossing Battersea Bridge isextremely limited. The scale of development proposed will make this very much worse.
Community Engagement
Questionnaires which fail to ask a direct question about the height or design, illustrations which for the most part crop the height of the building substantially, a newsletter, Battersea Buzz, which appears to be a neighbourhood publication with its publication by Rockwell noted in small type at the bottom of p.4 only, online advertising giving a link to more information arriving at a link to a suggested letter of Support to be sent to Wandsworth Council – just some of the ways in which the applicant’s agencies have aimed to gain support for their proposals. It is heartening that as we write there are just 10 letters of support (with one from Scarborough which seems to be an objection) against the current 478 objections.
Conclusion
For all the reasons outlined above, we believe that the case put forward for the proposed building is fundamentally flawed, and that the application should be refused. The Battersea Society will continue to object to the proposed development in anything like its current form.