The Battersea Society: Planning Committee submission Welcome to the Battersea Society website 


Planning Committee Submission



Added on: 11 June 2020 at 13:27:56

Hazel House, Haydon Way

Hazel House, Haydon Way


 


Response to consultation from The Battersea Society


 


We are grateful that the developers alerted us to this and enabled us both to alert our members and respond to the consultation.


 


Our general view is that this is an overdevelopment of the site with the majority of the building at 6 storeys.  As a result we have strong reservations about the scale of the proposed building, and its relationship to its neighbours. You will be aware that a proposal in 2017 for a development of flats on this site aroused considerable local resistance, and was refused by Wandsworth Council on the grounds that it was:


 


by reason of its scale, siting, mass and layout, would be an inappropriate and unneighbourly development, resulting in an unduly dominant building, out of keeping with its surroundings and detrimental to the street scene, resulting in undue harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers including an increased sense of enclosure and unacceptable loss of outlook.


 


We fear that a building of the scale suggested in the current proposals is subject to precisely the same objections, and we could not support it.


 


Co-Living Concept


 


It would be helpful to have more information about the size and design of individual suites, more precise details about the components within each suite (for example, what width is the double bed) and precisely what shared facilities will be provided and at what cost to residents.  We note for instance that ‘cleaning is optional’ and that utilities are included unless these are ‘excessive’.  No detail is given as to whether any suites will be provided at a discounted rate.  While comparisons are made with the cost of renting a studio or one-bedroom flat it is possible that a successful flat share would offer more space at an equivalent or lower cost.  The same may be true of a bed-sitting room within a traditional HMO (house in multiple occupation).


 


From the information provided so far we are not clear about the difference between the development proposed and an apartment hotel.


 


We are aware that there is currently no Wandsworth Council planning policy in relation to co-living and this is a concern. 


 


We look forward to knowing more of your plans as these develop and to hearing the general reaction you have had to these current proposals.


 


Planning Committee, Battersea Society


 


planning@batterseasociety.org.uk


 


10 June 2020


 


 


  


Response to consultation from The Battersea Society


We are grateful that the developers alerted us to this and enabled us both to alert our members and respond to the consultation.


Our general view is that this is an overdevelopment of the site with the majority of the building at 6 storeys.  As a result we have strong reservations about the scale of the proposed building, and its relationship to its neighbours. You will be aware that a proposal in 2017 for a development of flats on this site aroused considerable local resistance, and was refused by Wandsworth Council on the grounds that it was:


by reason of its scale, siting, mass and layout, would be an inappropriate and unneighbourly development, resulting in an unduly dominant building, out of keeping with its surroundings and detrimental to the street scene, resulting in undue harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers including an increased sense of enclosure and unacceptable loss of outlook.


We fear that a building of the scale suggested in the current proposals is subject to precisely the same objections, and we could not support it.


Co-Living Concept


It would be helpful to have more information about the size and design of individual suites, more precise details about the components within each suite (for example, what width is the double bed) and precisely what shared facilities will be provided and at what cost to residents.  We note for instance that ‘cleaning is optional’ and that utilities are included unless these are ‘excessive’.  No detail is given as to whether any suites will be provided at a discounted rate.  While comparisons are made with the cost of renting a studio or one-bedroom flat it is possible that a successful flat share would offer more space at an equivalent or lower cost.  The same may be true of a bed-sitting room within a traditional HMO (house in multiple occupation).


From the information provided so far we are not clear about the difference between the development proposed and an apartment hotel.


We are aware that there is currently no Wandsworth Council planning policy in relation to co-living and this is a concern. 


We look forward to knowing more of your plans as these develop and to hearing the general reaction you have had to these current proposals.