The Battersea Society: Planning Committee submission The Battersea Society website 

Planning Committee Submission

Submission to Wandsworth Borough Council
Added on: 4 November 2016 at 09:44:33

2016/5422 Palmerston Court 1 Palmerston Way SW8

The Battersea Society wish to strongly object to this application for the redevelopment of Palmerston Court.  We have concerns about the scale and massing of the buildings, accessibility into and within the site, its impact on local traffic and loss local amenity.

Unlike most major developments which come forward there is no Site Specific advice for the site, presumably because the existing Palmerston Court is a relatively new building and was not seen as a potential redevelopment option when the SSAD was prepared. We therefore have to rely totally on the DMPD to provide the policy framework. The developers no doubt wish to capitalise on the location of the site relative to the new tube station. We consider however that this development would further exacerbate traffic pollution and detract from the environment on this section of Battersea Park Road. Our concerns are:

I) Massing and Scale: we consider the massing, scale and height of the proposed development do not fully meet the requirements of DM4 v) to viii). The site dominates views both west along Battersea Park Road and eastwards from the Battersea Park Conservation area, along Prince of Wales Drive from Queens Circus. The visuals in the D and A statement give a distorted impression of the bulk of the building relative to existing structures such as the Dogs Home (for example on page 67). No visuals are given of the blocks from south of the site  - for example how will the development impact on Newton Preparatory School?

ii) Access around the site: the documentation although lengthy but does not give a simple picture of how the new buildings relates to the changes in height on the site or of the  pedestrian and vehicular access into and around the site (for example how will people get to the new public house?). It is nevertheless clear that accessibility through the central core with its twisting stairs could present problems for the less mobile and those in wheelchairs. The application therefore need to be fully assessed against DMS1i).

Iii) Drop offs and Parking: Clearly a new residential development of this scale will generate increased traffic movement along this section of Battersea Park Road, causing further congestion and adding to the already polluted environment in this area of Nine Elms. While it is reasonable for the proposals to focus on use of cycles and public transport, we are concerned that little thought appears to have been given to pickup/drop off areas for taxis and residential visitors,  In addition we are not convinced that sufficient parking capacity has been allowed in line with DMT2v) for the volume of deliveries and service calls a development of this scale will generate.

iv) Employment: it is essential that all existing employment in Palmerston Court is protected and alternative affordable, suitable local premises found for tenants. There needs to be a firm commitment to policy DMS1k). Will the proposed work units be financially accessible for existing tenants of Palmerston Court?

v) Loss of local amenity: While the one pub is a little run down the other is a historic Irish pub locally. The level of objections to the demolition of Flanagans rightly reflect its role and affection within the local community. As a number of those objecting to the loss of the Flanagans rightly say it is a pity that the recently issued Article 4 direction did not include this particular pub. Retaining community facilities of this type is essential to the long term social cohesion of this area of Nine Elms and more widely in Battersea. Some compromise to retain this historic pub and the facilities it offers to existing local residents should be possible, within a development of this scale.

We urge therefore that the applicants are asked to address the above points and that the application as currently submitted be refused.

To see full details of this application and other comments, or to make your own views known please click here