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


Planning Committee Submission


Submission to Wandsworth Borough Council
Added on: 14 March 2021 at 16:36:53

Dominvs Hotel, 2020/2047: Revised proposals


The Battersea Society wishes to maintain its strong objection to this application and do not consider the revised proposals, nor the responses given to our letter of 7 September 2020, are persuasive in allaying concerns expressed by ourselves, by neighbours, by TfL and by the Design Review Panel.

We note that additional money is to be paid to Battersea Arts Centre and to other worthwhile endeavours but this, while pleasing, should not be a material consideration in determining whether the buildings proposed are acceptable or whether they will have an adverse impact on the streetscape and on neighbouring properties.

We note, too, the reference to the emerging Local Plan and in response suggest that these buildings would not meet the criteria set out at LP1A, 2 and 9 nor LP2 General Development Principles. See details appended.

It is true that a hotel building on this site will bring many benefits but so too would a more considerate proposal, such as that within the original master plan; and without the detrimental effect larger buildings will have. There is minimal off street parking and waiting and we are not convinced that there will be no adverse impact on traffic on Nine Elms Lane. TfL were at one stage not prepared to accept valet parking for disabled visitors and while there may be good provision for employees needing disabled parking spaces, we have not found details of this.

The comparison of the revised drawing of the west elevation (with four cars waiting) with the drawing showing Carriageway Definition in the revised Landscape and Public realm document highlights that the elevation drawing is unrealistic. Given the road area available, there would clearly be congestion at this point on Ponton Road, compounded by the entrance to Waitrose car park opposite.

The comparison with the heights of other buildings in the area is not relevant as our concern is the change from the original master plan. The master plan prescribed heights for good reason and we cannot see that any change of context is relevant. So far the prescribed maximum heights have been adhered to and so too should plans for this small site. The CGIs do not show the level of intrusion given that the images are taken from some distance away. The heights are just too high for buildings so close to other buildings.

We note the letter of comfort re the viability of the two hotels but it seems to us that the reduction in conference rooms, together with the placing and height of the rooms, have not been fully considered. We were interested to hear that at a site in Hammersmith Dominvs are now applying for student accommodation in place of one of the twin hotels, having received planning permission for two hotels.

In conclusion, the reduction in height of around 9m to provide two buildings of 16 and 10 storeys (including the ground floor), the addition of a relatively small layby and other changes proposed are insufficient to counter our concerns. We very much hope that both officers and the Planning Application Committee will consider the harm these proposals will do to the already highly congested Nine Elms area and reject these proposals.


You can see full details of this application and other comments, or to make your own views known by copying 2020/2047 and pasting it into the box you will find here